tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55833874748334906642024-03-15T19:08:41.792-07:00PR Office CensorshipKathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-56626792084410079062024-02-01T18:11:00.000-08:002024-02-01T18:11:43.606-08:00 A Special Topic: An old fight with a new approach: Journalists file suit against gag rules in public agencies <p><i>This is an article I contributed to the Winter 2024 issue of Media Law Notes, the newsletter of the Law & Policy Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Reprinted here with permission.</i></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In apparently unprecedented legal actions, two
separate suits have been filed for journalists
against public agencies for having gag rules
prohibiting employees or contractors from
speaking to reporters.
Previously, similar suits on employee speech to journalists have been filed and won by parties
including unions or employers. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Many people, including attorneys, have thought that
journalists could not file such actions for themselves. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">However, in August investigative journalist Brittany Hailer <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?REF=2953">sued</a> the Allegheny County Jail in
Pittsburgh for allegedly having such speech restrictions even while a number of deaths
occurred in the facility. Hailer noted in a recent online meeting that if George Floyd had been
pulled behind similar walls, there probably would have been no documentation of his death. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In the second case, the publishers of “The Reporter” <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?REF=2986">sued </a>the Delaware County (New York)
Board of Supervisors for revoking the paper’s designation for legal advertising, allegedly in
retaliation for its news coverage, and for then banning county employees from speaking to
the paper about “pressing matters of public concern.” </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Hailer, in the Pittsburgh case, is being represented by the Yale Law School Media Freedom
and Information Access Clinic and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The
New York newspaper is represented by the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and
Michael J. Grygiel. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Both cases were inspired in part by an <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">extensive legal analysis</a> done by First Amendment
attorney Frank LoMonte which said such restrictions are unconstitutional and many courts
have said that. Both cases are still pending.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Such gag rules have become a norm in many arenas, including some universities. The Society of Professional
Journalists has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For one salient example on the federal level, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention media
relations head Glen Nowak <a href="https://www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/">has said</a> the controls grew more restrictive over each Presidential administration
since President Reagan. He said the restrictions were politically driven and effective in controlling much
information. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For some years now, when a reporter contacts a public information office (PIO) for permission to talk to
someone, the request must be sent up through the political layers of government, such as to the Department of
Health and Human Services Secretary of Public Affairs and often to the White House. Behind closed doors
officials decide who may speak to whom and what may be discussed.
Most journalists have acquiesced to the mandate to routinely contact the PIOs first and they don’t tell the
public about that control. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">However, that step, by itself, bans people on the inside from communicating fluidly
or speaking without notifying the authorities. There is inevitably much people will not mention when they
know their bosses know who is talking to whom. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">However, from all reports we have heard, most reporters’ requests to speak to someone are not granted. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In
addition to the heavy controls on contacts, reporters have long been banned from entering many agencies’
facilities. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Most federal agencies have had these controls for some time, and they are common in state and local agencies,
as well as private entities.<a href="https://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2021/04/bidens-epa-officials-contact-between.html"> The Environmental Protection Agency</a>, Department of Energy, <a href="https://www.spj.org/gagged/">etc</a>., have the same
censorship, even in the face of climate change. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">With AI apparently changing history, the Department of
Commerce had a bold <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1EcYVEasPYnJAF-F8arJGKLjECHA7N_4L">version </a>of the restrictions. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">SPJ president Ashanti-Blaize Hopkins said, “These gag orders are among the most dangerous threats to free
speech and the public’s right to know, as they prevent journalists from doing their jobs.” </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Most news outlets are not openly fighting the controls. One reason is that journalists have a strong tendency to
believe: “Good reporters get the story anyway.” Journalists do publish some impactful material that reflects
skill and hard work, including the cultivation of employees who defy the gag rules. But journalists also tend to
believe whatever they get is all there (paraphrasing psychologist Daniel Kahneman). They tend to believe that
even though most staff continue to be frightened out of talking even after our stories are published. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In addition, as Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, says, “The news system is not
designed for human understanding. Even at the top providers, it’s designed to produce a flow of new content
today - and every day.” </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Information control is one of the deadliest things in history. It’s incumbent on
journalists to ensure we aren’t just getting spectacular content while people in
power are manipulating us away from much of what they don’t want published. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The issue needs much more scrutiny. For one thing, the impact needs to be
better documented as the question moves into the courts. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">My 2022 <a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php">article</a> in
the Columbia Journalism Review is on this history, and the SPJ did previous
<a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys">surveys</a> that showed the pervasiveness of the controls in many levels of
government and other sectors. SPJ has a <a href="https://www.spj.org/gagged/">collection</a> of written media policies,
and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing held a 2022 <a href="https://sabew.org/event/the-gagging-of-america/">seminar</a>
on the controls in the private sector. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Please contact me for questions or background: kfoxhall@verizon.net. </span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall is a longtime health reporter; former editor of the newspaper of
the American Public Health Association; and winner of the 2021 Wells Key, the
highest honor for an SPJ member, specifically for work against the gag rule
culture. </span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Resources on “Gag Rules and Censorship by PIO” </span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-Recently, the New England Chapter of SPJ sponsored a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ooach7ywGc">Zoom program</a> on the
Allegheny suit, moderated by First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte, who
has written a<a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf"> legal pathway</a> for such actions. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-Also, last fall, <a href="https://mddcpress.com/about-us/podcast/">a podcast</a> by the Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia
Press Association featured the lawsuit by journalist Brittany Hailer and one of
her lawyers, RCFP attorney Paula Knudsen Burke. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-SPJ <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1687">has said</a> the controls are censorship and authoritarian. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-SPJ has sponsored <a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys">seven surveys</a> showing that the restrictions are pervasive
in federal, state and local government, education, science organizations,
police departments, etc. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-Among many communications over the years, 25 journalism and other
groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy asking for the elimination of such restrictions in the
federal government. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-Journalism groups’ FOI officers<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE"> told</a> the New York Times, “The press should
not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so
many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.” The
longer version of the letter is here. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-“Editor and Publisher” <a href="https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/censorship-by-pio,204560">featured</a> the issue in October 2021. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">-A review of recent actions is in my<a href="http://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/"> blog</a>. </span></p><p>*Special thanks to Kathryn Foxhall and the SPJ for compiling and providing these
resources.</p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-6314408270067978162023-12-15T18:34:00.000-08:002023-12-15T18:34:52.623-08:00A Second Legal Case Challenges Public Agency's Gag Rule for Journalists<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">A second <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dcjub08mg5f03gh9wg4kn/Decker-Advertising-vs-Delaware-County-Complaint.pdf?rlkey=gc9zjhufs7t1pdlgp4v1ntjxe&dl=0">legal case</a> was filed this month on behalf of journalists opposing public agencies having restrictions on employees speaking to reporters. <br /><br />In early December the owners of The Reporter sued the Delaware County (New York) Board of Supervisors for the county attorney’s mandate that all communications with the newspaper go through her office. <br /><br />Previously the Board of Supervisors had revoked the paper’s designation as the outlet for legal advertising for the county, an action taken in retaliation for news coverage the Board of Supervisors did not like, the complaint alleges. It asserts that revocation violated the newspaper’s First Amendment rights. <br /><br />After the Board’s action got <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/18/business/newspapers-public-notices.html">coverage</a> in the New York Times, along with such instances in other newspapers, the county attorney said that all communications with the paper should come through her, the paper’s complaint said. <br /><br />It asserted, “This Court should also declare that Delaware County and Defendant Amy Merklen, by issuing the gag directive, violated both The Reporter’s First Amendment right to receive information from willing speakers and County employees’ First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern, and thereby enjoin the enforcement of the gag directive.” <br /><br />The action follows the suit by Brittany Hailer filed in August challenging the Allegheny County Jail in Pennsylvania for its policies prohibiting staff and contractors from speaking to the media or others about the jail without approval. <br /><br />The Hailer suit is believed to be the <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?REF=2953">first one ever</a> filed on behalf of a journalist against these gag rules in public agencies. Other suits against such gag rules have been filed and often won by parties including employees and unions. The Hailer suit is still before the court. <br /><br />At the time the Hailer suit was filed Claire Regan, then president of the Society of Professional Journalists, said, “These speech bans, which journalists have seen grow more pervasive and controlling, are among the most damaging threats to free speech and public welfare today.” <br /><br />The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and attorney Michael J. Grygiel are representing the New York newspaper. The Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are representing Brittany Hailer in Pennsylvania. <br /><br />News coverage is <a href="https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/the-reporter-sues-delaware-county-18516953.php">here</a> and <a href="https://catskillcountry.com/stories/reporter-sues-delaware-county-supervisors-county-attorney,126943">here</a>.</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-67354933744765880812023-12-04T15:36:00.000-08:002023-12-04T15:36:44.085-08:00From Across the Nation: What the Culture of Gag Rules Does to Us<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The Pittsburg Post-Gazette editorial board said that the journalist’s lawsuit, filed in August, against a public agency for banning employees from speaking to reporters, “could transform government transparency.” <br /><br />Investigative journalist Brittany Hailer has sued the Allegheny County Jail for having those prohibitions, even while the facility allegedly has a high death rate. <br /><br />On a recent Zoom program, Hailer said, “Something that we talk about a lot, in the death-in-custody stuff that we’re doing, is: had George Floyd crossed the threshold of his jail we never would have known what would happen. It would have entered a black box of information.” <br /><br />Elsewhere, in June, a Louisville Courier Journal review of 35 Kentucky state and local agencies' policies found “that 70% restrict or prohibit employees from talking to news outlets − some in ways that legal scholars say are unconstitutional.” <br /><br />The Isthmus news outlet in Madison, Wisconsin, said a public information office physically blocked a reporter from approaching a public official but it’s much more common for PIOs to stymie reporters, “by ignoring emails, refusing to allow reporters to speak directly to frontline workers, requiring that reporters submit written questions and sitting on requested documents.” <br /><br />Below is some of the coverage of the gag rule norm from around the nation, as well as online discussions of the Hailer case, and other resources. <br /><br /><b> Recent local coverage:</b><br /><br />Isthmus, Madison, Wisconsin, July 10, 2023<br /> “Running interference: Public information officers often forget the ‘public’ in their titles”<br /> Judith Davidoff<br /> <a href="https://isthmus.com/opinion/from-the-editor/running-interference/">https://isthmus.com/opinion/from-the-editor/running-interference/</a> <br /><br />Triblive, Southwestern Pennsylvania, September 14, 2023<br /> “Aspinwall’s revived media policy raises freedom of speech concerns”<br /> Michael Divittorio<br /> <a href="https://triblive.com/local/valley-news-dispatch/aspinwall-revived-media-policy-raises-freedom-of-speech-concerns/">https://triblive.com/local/valley-news-dispatch/aspinwall-revived-media-policy-raises-freedom-of-speech-concerns/</a> <br /><br />Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 04, 2023 <br /> “Editorial: Pittsburgh journalist’s lawsuit could transform government transparency”<br /> Editorial Board<br /> <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2023/09/04/brittany-hailer-lawsuit-allegheny-county-jail/stories/20230904001">https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2023/09/04/brittany-hailer-lawsuit-allegheny-county-jail/stories/20230904001</a><br /> [Paywall applies.] <br /><br />Louisville Courier Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, June 14, 2023<br /> “‘Censorship by PIO’: Kentucky agencies' strict media rules putting a gag on workers”<br /> Andrew Wolfson<br /> <a href="https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2023/06/14/censorship-are-kentucky-agencies-wrongly-blocking-workers-free-speech/70246060007/">Censorship: Are Kentucky agencies blocking employees' free speech? (courier-journal.com)</a><br /> [Paywall applies.] <br /><br /> <br /><b>Recent Discussion Sessions on the Allegheny County Jail Suit </b><br /><br />-- Recently, the New England Chapter of SPJ sponsored a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ooach7ywGc">zoom program</a> on the Allegheny suit, moderated by First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte, who has written a <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">legal pathway</a> for such actions. <br /><br />-- A <a href="https://mddcpress.com/about-us/podcast/">podcast</a> by the Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia Press Association features the lawsuit by journalist Brittany Hailer and one of her lawyers, RCFP attorney Paula Knudsen Burke. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b> Earlier Resources: </b><br /><br />-- <a href="https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spj.org%2Fres2019.asp*232&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hh7lF2Gy7A4WN9RayoYQd96P1UvCSfMNWQDEz6AXQyY%3D&reserved=0___.YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6NzMwZTpiYjQ0YTI0OTg4NThkMWRlZWQwOTFkNjJkYzQ1NDQyODJmYzllMzIxNzE5NjFiNWUyMzJjZWFiOWNjYTRlYTFmOmg6VA">The Society of Professional Journalists</a> has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian. <br /><br />-- Among many communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/www.spjorg/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf___.YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6MzYzZTpjMTk3M2FmNGRmM2UwOWJkZmE0YThhYjIxN2RkOGU5NTliYWRmNzMxMjcwM2EzZWExNjBiZjkwZWEyNDA2ZTgxOmg6VA">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government. <br /><br />--Glen Nowak, a former CDC head of media relations and a longtime communications employee, <a href="https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/___.YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6NWEwYTphNWVlNjI2OGQwY2E5NDZmM2IwY2I3Yjk3NjQ3MGY4NGFmNmFjZDQwMjlhMWZhYjA0ZWU4ZTNlNTY1MTYxY2EyOmg6VA">has said</a> that since the 1980s the restrictions on CDC staff have grown tighter with each presidential administration; every contact with a reporter is controlled by the higher political levels; and that this system “works” for officials in terms of suppressing information. <br /><br />-- A 2022 Columbia Journalism Review <a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php">article</a> looks at the history of the restraints. <br /><br />-- Journalism groups’ FOI officers <a href="https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE___YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6YmZhNjoyMmQzOTczY2I4YjVhMmMyZmFiZDE0MTgyYTQ0OTdhN2YzNzBiYjhiYTc3Y2YxZThlYzZmOTQyZjUzNTRhMDNkOmg6VA">told</a> the New York Times in 2022 “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.” The longer version of the letter is <a href="https://urlavanan.click/v2/___http:/profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2022/11/to-nyt-threat-of-bans-on-speaking-to.html___.YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6YTExYTozN2YyNzM5NWViYmYzM2YwZGNmNjQyMGY2MDRmNjA4NTAxMmE2MmQyYjQxYjY3ZmJlNjA1Y2IwNjI5NjdmMDRkOmg6VA">here</a>. <br /><br />-- “Editor and Publisher” <a href="https://urlavanan.click/v2/___https:/nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublishercom%2Fstories%2Fcensorship-by-pio%2C204560%3Fnewsletter%3D205765&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VUkGX1XJXe4nVZVolsmU9AkIT0kSDMEd7SW94W83X1Q%3D&reserved=0___.YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6ZDg3NTo3OWFjODcxMTNiNTY4NDI4Y2ZhOWU1NmQ0ZmJkN2JmYThlMzJiYzQ2ZTM3NzlhNjYzZjg3NjFmZTZmNmI1MDllOmg6VA">featured</a> the issue in October 2021.</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-6496365483140537012023-10-25T18:02:00.000-07:002023-10-25T18:02:52.157-07:00YouTube Program: The Gag Rules and "Censorship by PIO" Are Now Everywhere. One Reporter is Moving to Take Legal Action<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">On October 19, the New England Chapter of SPJ hosted a zoom session on, “Fighting Gag Rules on Government Employees.” <br /><br /> In particular, this is about what may be the first suit by a journalist against this kind of censorship in a public agency. <br /><br /> These rules, despite being unconstitutional, are common in all levels of government, as well as private organizations. <br /><br /> Here’s the YouTube <a href="https://youtu.be/-ooach7ywGc">link</a>. <br /><br /> --Frank LoMonte, First Amendment attorney who is now counsel at CNN, has previously said these rules are unconstitutional and courts have agreed with that. He said, “What kind of government would punish people for just for being dissidents, right? What kind of government would punish people for being critics of the official regime’s policy? And the answer is ours.” <br /><br /> --Brittany Hailer, the Pennsylvania investigative journalist who has filed the suit against the Allegheny County Jail, said, “Something that we talk about a lot in the death-in-custody stuff that we're doing is: had George Floyd crossed the threshold of his jail we never would have known what would happen. It would have entered a black box of information.” <br /><br /> --Kathryn Foxhall said even now as we are still trying to figure out what happened during the pandemic and the dangers of doing or not doing particular research on viruses, the entire 70,000 person staff of HHS is trained not to speak to the reporters without notifying the authorities. Most of the time they can’t speak at all. “This is a horrific crime against humanity. It’s dictatorial control over what people can hear.” She also said, “It’s the press’ fault.” <br /><br /> SPJ press release on the suit, filed in August, with resources: <br /><br /><a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=2953">https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=2953</a> <br /></span><br /> <br /><div align="center"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 100%;"><tbody>
</tbody></table>
</div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-67708884026002846842023-10-20T12:56:00.000-07:002023-10-20T12:56:30.006-07:00Punishing Dissidents; Deaths in Custody: Session on Controls on Reporting<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">On Thursday, the New England Chapter of SPJ hosted a zoom session on, “Fighting Gag Rules on Government Employees.” <br /><br />In particular, this is about what may be the first suit by a journalist against this kind of censorship in a public agency. <br /><br />Here’s the YouTube <a href="https://youtu.be/-ooach7ywGc">link</a>. <br /><br />--Frank LoMonte, First Amendment attorney who is now counsel at CNN, has previously said these rules are unconstitutional and courts have agreed with that. He said, “What kind of government would punish people for just for being dissidents, right? What kind of government would punish people for being critics of the official regime’s policy? And the answer is ours.” <br /><br />--Brittany Hailer, the Pennsylvania investigative journalist who has filed the suit against the Allegheny County Jail, said, “Something that we talk about a lot in the death-in-custody stuff that we're doing is: had George Floyd crossed the threshold of his jail we never would have known what would happen. It would have entered a black box of information.” <br /><br />--Kathryn Foxhall said even now as we are still trying to figure out what happened during the pandemic and the dangers of doing or not doing research on viruses, the entire 70,000 person staff of HHS is trained not to speak to the reporters without notifying the authorities. Most of the time they can’t speak at all. “This is a horrific crime against humanity. It’s dictatorial control over what people can hear.” She also said, “It’s the press’ fault.” <br /><br />SPJ press release on the suit, filed in August, with resources: <br /><br /><a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=2953">https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=2953</a></span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-71566314404518921362023-10-10T19:11:00.000-07:002023-10-10T19:11:01.006-07:00In an Apparent First, Journalist Files Suit Against Gag Rules in A Public Agency<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Franklin", georgia, serif; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit;">On August 17 Brittany Hailer filed what is believed to be the first suit by a journalist challenging gag rules a public agency. Below is the release from the Society of Professional Journalists at that time. Allegheny County has until October 23 to respond to the complaint. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Franklin", georgia, serif; font-size: x-large; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: 900;">SPJ hails lawsuit to challenge gag rules in public agency:</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #444444; font-family: "Libre Franklin", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><div><br style="color: #444444; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 18px;" /><div class="newsBody" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box !important; color: #444444; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The <a href="https://www.spj.org/index.asp" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Society of Professional Journalists</a> congratulated investigative journalist Brittany Hailer for her efforts challenging the Allegheny County Jail in Pennsylvania for its policies prohibiting staff and contractors from speaking to the media or others about the jail without approval.<br /><br />As part of these efforts, Hailer filed on August 17 what is believed to be the first such <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-08-17-Hailer-v.-Allegheny-County-Complaint.pdf" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> brought by a journalist. Such restrictions have been found to be unconstitutional in past cases brought by employees or their unions. Journalism groups have been actively decrying such gag rules for at least a decade.<br /><br />“These speech bans, which journalists have seen grow more pervasive and controlling, are among the most damaging threats to free speech and public welfare today,” said SPJ National President Claire Regan. “SPJ has repeatedly led in opposing these restrictions which it has called censorship and authoritarian. Hailer’s suit shows journalists themselves can fight back in court against people in power silencing subordinates in terms of talking to reporters or forcing them to report conversations to authorities.”<br /><br />The Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/hailer-v-allegheny-county/" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">filed the suit on behalf of Hailer</a>, director of the Pittsburgh Institute for Nonprofit Journalism, whose work is funded in part by The Pulitzer Center.<br /><br />The complaint says, “The Gag Rules prevent reporting that is urgently needed to inform the public about conditions and events at the Jail and unconstitutionally impede news coverage of the Jail needed for meaningful public oversight and accountability.”<br /><br />Hailer has <a href="https://pinjnews.org/allegheny-county-jail/" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">reported extensively</a> on problems at the Allegheny County Jail. For example, the suit claims, since April 2020, at least 20 men have died after entering the jail, with circumstances of many of the deaths being unclear and, “in several cases, the Jail has never provided medical records to family members to confirm a cause of death.”<br /><br />“This case presents an important issue for reporters at a time when agencies at every level of government are barring their employees from talking with the press,” said David Schulz, director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. “The issue at the heart of this case goes directly to the ability of the press to ferret out the news the public needs for democracy to function.”<br /><br />These restrictions are sometimes referred to as “censorship by PIO,” because many agencies force employees to refer any reporter to their public information office rather than speak with them. SPJ <a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">surveys</a> have shown the controls to be common in federal, state and local government, in science, education and police departments. Last year Glen Nowak, a former media relations head at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that from the 1980s forward each presidential administration <a href="https://www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">tightened what that agency could say</a> until every contact with a reporter had to be vetted through the political layers of government.<br /><br />In 2019 Frank LoMonte, then head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information and SPJ Foundation board member, published a <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">legal analysis</a> and road map for this kind of action by journalists, saying, “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. The only question is whether the restraint will be treated as a presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint, or whether a less rigorous level of scrutiny will apply.”<br /><br />Kathryn Foxhall, who was awarded the <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1844" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">2021 SPJ Wells Memorial Key</a> for her extensive work opposing gag rules, said, “Information control is one of the most abusive, deadliest things in all human history, even when leaders believe in what they are doing. Journalists take pride in the notion that, ‘Good reporters get the story anyway.’ But we don’t know what remains hidden. We need to fight these bans as if many lives depend upon it. They do.”<br /><br />SPJ hopes Hailer’s lawsuit will bring about similar challenges and reduce restrictive gag orders placed on public agencies that impede journalists’ important work.<br /><br /><span style="border: 0px; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Other Resources:</span><br /><br />— A 2022 Columbia Journalism Review <a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">article</a> by Foxhall gives a history of the restraints.<br /><br />— SPJ has said the controls <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1687" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">are censorship and authoritarian</a>.<br /><br />— SPJ has sponsored seven <a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">surveys</a> showing that the restrictions are pervasive in federal, state and local government, education, science organizations, police departments, etc.<br /><br />— Among many communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government<br /><br />— Journalism groups’ freedom of information officers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">told</a> The New York Times in 2022, “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.” The longer version of the letter is <a href="http://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2022/11/to-nyt-threat-of-bans-on-speaking-to.html" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />— Editor and Publisher <a href="https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/censorship-by-pio,204560?newsletter=205765" style="border: 0px; color: #2071b0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">featured</a> the issue of censorship by PIO in October 2021.</span></p></div></div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-54861958492099529392023-08-01T18:25:00.000-07:002023-08-01T18:25:02.987-07:00To Editors: Isn't This Corruption of the Press Itself?<p> <i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The following are excerpts from a
letter I sent repeatedly to editors at the Washington Post, The New York Times,
Science and Scientific American. I have received only inconsequential replies.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The discussion is about the restraints
on reporting, which often start with banning an organization’s staff from
speaking to journalists without going through PIOs. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">After
years of work on this issue, I contend these systems, grown up over decades,
are abusive, lethal corruption of the institutions of power, but also of the
press. They are one of the prime causes of the pandemic failures and they are
readying us for failures elsewhere. Some history is in my Columbia Journalism
Review <a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php;">article</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I’d like
to make this an open letter and I’m requesting your answers on my questions
below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Very
importantly, a former CDC media relations head, probably as close a witness to
this development as anyone, <a href="https://www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/">says</a>
that the controls tightened over decades because there was no push back; that
they are very political; <b>and that they have been successful in suppressing
information. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">CDC is
only one salient example. These controls now exist from Congressional offices
and most the federal establishment down to local police departments. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
opposition work against this has gone on for some time. <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spj.org%2Fres2019.asp%232&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hh7lF2Gy7A4WN9RayoYQd96P1UvCSfMNWQDEz6AXQyY%3D&reserved=0">The
Society of Professional Journalists</a> has said the controls are censorship
and authoritarian. <span style="color: #26282a;">The extensive legal analysis
from </span><a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf" target="_blank">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a><span style="color: #26282a;"> found that these constraints, though very common,
are unconstitutional and many courts have agreed with that. (The longer version
is a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">legal
article</a>.) </span><span style="color: black;">Among many other
communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups </span><a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf" target="_blank">wrote to</a><span style="color: black;"> the Biden
Administration calling for elimination of such restrictions in the federal
government. Journalism groups FOI officers </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE">told</a><span style="color: black;"> the New York Times the press should be openly fighting
these controls.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Many
journalists’ answers to this situation are along the lines that reporters work
hard, are highly skilled and have some contacts who will talk to them. However,
that does not tell us what proportion of critical issues we understand. It does
add perspective to notice how many serious problems come to light only after
they have existed for a long time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Despite
some very impressive journalism in your publications, all journalists are
missing stories and parts of the stories because most people around the
situations are successfully blocked from talking, even after the stories are
published. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">My
questions include: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Why
isn’t this historically hazardous? Why wouldn’t human institutions, including
government agencies, develop corrosion after years of controlling public
scrutiny of themselves? Given that we are still struggling to understand what
happened in the pandemic, is the fact that all HHS staff are constrained in
their speech a crime against humanity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Is
there any reason to think journalists are getting the majority of what is most
critical given that so many people close to the situations are silenced?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---What
are the ethics of journalists working under these controls without openly
opposing them or explaining them to the public? Is the press empowering lethal
censorship?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Control
of information is at least one of the deadliest things in human history. Now we
are in an era of existentialist threats to humanity. Why are we taking the risk
of allowing any new constraints on reporting? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Also,
would you confirm that:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---For
many years reporters have not had routine physical access to HHS facilities,
including FDA or CDC?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---There
is no credentialling system to allow reporters access to those facilities? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Usually,
reporters must go through the public information officers to speak to anyone at
HHS agencies, because employees are instructed not to talk to them otherwise?
(This is with the understanding that sometimes staffers do defy the rules and
talk to reporters without going through channels.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Frequently
reporters are blocked from speaking to people they request at HHS agencies,
either because the request is denied outright or because the permission process
takes so long the reporter can’t wait?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Reporters
were under these controls the entire time, as well as years before, while we
had a mass death event? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The Basics
from Former CDC Media Relations Head: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">About
Administrations’ Controls and Remaining Elected<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">In an
interview with me Glen Nowak, former head of CDC media relations said that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Scientists
and others are unlikely to talk to reporters without oversight by the public
information office because they have been “trained.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #363636; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Since the 1980s, each political administration saw that
the prior administration had experienced no ill effects from tightening the
controls and proceeded to tighten them further. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #363636; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---Every contact between a reporter and employee must be
authorized up through the HHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, who is
often a communications person from the presidential campaign. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">That person, “can say yes or no, or
they can add their recommendations and thoughts to the key messages, and they
can decide whether if this is something that should be elevated to either the
awareness level at the White House….” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">---“So,
administrations, typically, their priority is trying to remain elected. And they’re
often looking at policies through, you know: how will this help or not help
when it comes to running for election? How will this help maintain or grow
support? And so, yeah, that’s basically the bottom line,” Nowak said.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-28304788927077136512023-07-02T15:04:00.000-07:002023-07-02T15:04:23.315-07:00Courier Journal Finds "Censorship by PIO" Is Common in Kentucky Government<p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Although a legal review has said the practice is unconstitutional, the Courier Journal article says that its review of “35 Kentucky state and local agencies’ policies found that 70% restrict or prohibit employees from talking to news outlets….”</span></span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“Punishments are rarely imposed by local and state agencies for violations, but in July 2022, then-LMPD Chief Erika Shields suspended Officer Donavis Duncan for two days without pay for giving several interviews to news outlets about the death of Breonna Taylor, who lived in his apartment building,” the article says. <br /><br />According to the Courier Journal the state attorney general’s office says, “Employees shall refrain from commenting to the media on matters involving office policy, cases, opinions and investigations or any other business of the Office of the Attorney General.” The policy adds that any employee “who fails to follow this policy may be subject to corrective disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.” <br /><br />The article quotes Frank LoMonte, a First Amendment attorney and now counsel for CNN, as saying: “Though the practice of gagging public employees from giving unapproved interviews is pervasive across all levels of government, decades’ worth of First Amendment caselaw demonstrates that blanket restrictions on speaking to the media are legally unenforceable.” <br /><br />Many of the same type policies are in effect in many state and localities, according to <a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys">surveys</a> sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists. <br /><br />The <a href="https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2023/06/14/censorship-are-kentucky-agencies-wrongly-blocking-workers-free-speech/70246060007/">article</a> is on the newspaper’s site. A firewall applies.</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-9866437807407829692023-05-12T18:22:00.000-07:002023-05-12T18:22:21.595-07:00The Child Separation Story: Reporters Should Have Been There<p><i> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">This went to Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief, The Atlantic magazine, on May 9. </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Mr.
Goldberg:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Thank
you so much for the story on the separation of the children and congratulations
on the Pulitzer Prize.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">After
years of working with SPJ and others on the gag rules in agencies, etc., I’m
asking some “direct” questions, not just of you, but of many journalists.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Doesn’t
your separation story show that journalists have an obligation to be there in
the government agencies and to be talking to people without PIO or other
authorities monitoring? Or to be fighting like all hell to end the policies
that block that?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Isn’t
there a solid chance that this whole horror of human rights abuse would not
have happened if reporters had been there and had no censors on their
communications?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">FYI,
an extensive </span><a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">review</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> by Frank LoMonte,
prominent First Amendment attorney, says journalists can sue on this issue and
would have a great chance of winning.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Thanks
for your attention. Below is part of my email to The Atlantic from last fall
which explains more.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">I
hope we can talk.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Kathryn Foxhall<br /><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Please
note:</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">
Glen Nowak, a former CDC head of media relations and longtime communications
employee, </span><a href="https://www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">has said</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> that since the
1980s the restrictions on CDC staff have grown tighter with each presidential
administration; every contact is controlled up through the political levels;
and that this system “works” for officials in terms of suppressing information.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Over
the last 30-40 years there has been </span><a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">a trend</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> in employers and others banning subordinates
from speaking to the press without oversight from authorities. This is often
done through a public information office.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">My </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">2022</span><a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> article</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> in
the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend. I am a longtime
health reporter and serve as a sort of point person on the gag rules.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">I wanted to ask the Atlantic in particular to consider this
because the story on child separation is very impressive. But as with so many
other stories, the whole situation probably could have been avoided had
reporters not been under such intense censorship: locked out of buildings and
facing thousands of staff people forbidden to talk to us. Is it ethical for any
of us to get such a story after the fact and not explain and fight the
restrictions on reporters?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">The same is true of Covid. We</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> now<span style="color: #222222;"> have</span>
at least<span style="color: #222222;"> six million dead and virtually all 90
thousand people in HHS essentially silenced</span>, as they have been for
years.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">The
system looks like this: All employees are prohibited to speak to reporters
without oversight starting with the public information office. Then when a
reporter contacts PIOs for permission to talk to someone, the request must go
up through the political layers of government, at least to the HHS Secretary of
Public Affairs and often to the White House. Behind closed doors officials decide
who may speak to whom and what may be discussed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p>F</o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">rom
all reports we have heard, most requests from reporters’ to speak to someone
are not granted.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">The
situation is a horrific danger to human welfare. The conflict of interest for
agency leaders is overwhelming given they have controls over what journalists
can discern about them and their work. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Informed
consent can hardly be real when the entire population is blocked from getting
independent perspective on what agencies do to impact them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">There is an excellent chance that specialized reporters, if they
had been free to network within the buildings or do normal communication could
have told an expert audience about the agency’s problems long before they
resulted in pandemic failures.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Please note among other things:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">-- </span><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spj.org%2Fres2019.asp%232&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hh7lF2Gy7A4WN9RayoYQd96P1UvCSfMNWQDEz6AXQyY%3D&reserved=0"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
Society of Professional Journalists</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> has said the controls
are censorship and authoritarian.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">-- The extensive legal analysis from </span><a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> finds that
these constraints, although very common, are unconstitutional and many courts
have agreed with that. (The longer version is a </span><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">legal
brief</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">.)<br />
<br />
-- Among many communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups </span><a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">wrote
to</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal
government.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">I hope we can talk.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Other Resources</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br />
-- Journalism groups’ FOI officers </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">told</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> the
New York Times, “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what
we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly
fighting these controls.” The longer version of the letter is </span><a href="http://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2022/11/to-nyt-threat-of-bans-on-speaking-to.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">-- “Editor and Publisher” </span><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Fstories%2Fcensorship-by-pio%2C204560%3Fnewsletter%3D205765&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VUkGX1XJXe4nVZVolsmU9AkIT0kSDMEd7SW94W83X1Q%3D&reserved=0"><span style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">featured</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> the
issue in October 2021.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">-- My bio: I have been a reporter mostly covering federal health
agencies for over 40 years, including 14 years as editor of The Nation’s Health
at the American Public Health Association. I have served as a point person on
the issue of gag rules for over eight years. I was honored to receive the 2021
Wells Key, the highest honor for a member of the Society of Professional
Journalists, specifically for this work.</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-412669477640272582023-01-04T15:00:00.000-08:002023-01-04T15:00:41.110-08:00Cato Institute Panelists: Yes, The Gag Rules Were Key to the Failures in the Pandemic<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This was my question put forth for a December <a href="https://www.cato.org/events/performance-review-evaluating-cdc-wake-covid-pandemic">session</a> at the Cato Institute about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: <br /><br /><i>“Over the last 30-40 years there has been <a href="https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https:/www.spj.org/pios.asp___.YXAzOmNhdG9pbnN0aXR1dGU6YTpvOjgxZTEyOWE3M2M3MzE3NTgyNGM2NDA2MDY0MGYyZTQ4OjY6NDFjNzplNDlmZWNhMDI2YmEwOGExMDFiOWRmNTNmZDA1MDRhODljMWJhMDYxM2ZjZTlhNjBhOWQ3MDQzYTNlMjJmZmFkOmg6VA">a trend</a> in employers banning subordinates from speaking to the press without the authorities’ oversight, often through a public information office. Having covered CDC before and after these controls, I have zero doubt these restrictions were key in the agency’s failures. Given the deadly history of information control, the question is: why wouldn’t they be key to the agency’s failures?</i>” <br /><br />Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine and adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, answered: “As a science journalist--science policy journalist--I completely agree with that. Years ago, when I was beginning, I could call up anybody at a federal agency, basically. USDA if I wanted to talk about genetically modified crops, for example, or at the FDA for new treatments, and could get the person on the line who’s the actual researcher and say, ‘So what's going on? Tell me what’s going on.’ And that slowly but surely began to clamp down. It began under the Clinton administration. It got worse and worse over time. And eventually I stopped calling because what happens is that you identify the person who you want to talk to, you call them. They say, ‘I have to get up with my public information officer first.’ Then, the public information officer will say a week later, ‘You can talk to them, but I’m going to be on the line listening.’ And eventually, basically, you had the possibility of independent information coming out of the agencies to a journalist: it just died on the vine. So, I think a lot of people have had this experience in the journalism world. I think it’s terrible. These people are public servants. They should be able to speak to the rest of us as they would any other citizen, in my humble opinion.” <br /><br />Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and professor of health policy and management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, “I think that the quote you read is so key to understanding this pandemic. A leader in [a journalism organization] says that basically tens of thousands of scientists across all these agencies have been gagged. They are not allowed to speak to the media. That is toxic. I mean: that is toxic. In science, that is sort of, you know, the ultimate golden rule that we reserve the right to speak freely about what we believe to be the truth. And so that, I think, was a huge part. Now, I got a chance to talk to so many people who work in agencies: number two, number three, level people, at different departments, and I wrote a piece for Bari Weiss showing that there is not consensus there. When their director gets up there, there are people very high up who are so fed up. They are quitting. They are leaving in droves. They are pissed off. One of them told me that they feel like they’re watching a horror movie and they are forced to keep their eyes open. They couldn’t believe it: ‘I can’t speak.’ A journalist will reach out and the Communications Department at the NIH will say: “We have a media inquiry for you. Tell us what you’re going to tell them and then we will decide whether or not you can do it.” I mean, my parents grew up with state-controlled TV. I think that’s better than what we’re seeing in the NIH.” <br /><br />Makary, in his last comment for the session said, “Everyone likes to peg what you say as, alright, ‘Are you on my political side or their political side?’….Let’s put all that aside and allow people to speak out freely, namely the many thousands of scientists at the NIH and CDC and HHS who have been gagged from speaking to the public. That is probably the worst poison in our government that persists today. A problem that we can fix, that we have not yet fixed.” <br /><br />[Makary co-authored the <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following">article</a> “U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren’t ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say,” in The Free Press.] <br /><br />Time mark: The discussion of the gag rules in the Cato session video begins at about 40.14 minutes.</span><p></p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-63917859178070939682022-11-10T18:14:00.000-08:002022-11-10T18:14:31.627-08:00To NYT: The Threat of Bans on Speaking to Journalists<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">On June 16 a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE">letter </a>from Freedom of Information officers from two journalism groups appeared in the New York Times.<br /><br />The longer version of that letter, copied to most of the editorial staff of the New York Times, is below.<br /><br /><br />To the New York Times Editorial Board:<br /><br />Your opinion piece of March 18, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html?searchResultPosition=2">America Has a Free Speech Problem</a>, said, “This editorial board plans to identify a wide range of threats to freedom of speech in the coming months and to offer possible solutions.”<br /><br />While that piece focused in large part on so-called “cancel culture,” we believe that one of the most dangerous threats to free speech and press is the tremendous growth over about three decades of government offices and agencies, businesses and other institutions banning employees from speaking to journalists. Sometimes the bans are total. Sometimes they prohibit contact unless the staff member or the reporter notifies gatekeepers, often through public information offices. According to Society of Professional Journalists surveys and discussions with journalists and others, these controls on access to information and experts have become a cultural norm.<br /><br />Public employees, at least, not only have a First Amendment right, they have an obligation to be open and transparent about the work they do on behalf of the public. It is work paid for by the taxpayers, which the government has no right to withhold or suppress.<br /><br />Last year 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government and for restoring journalists' access to agencies.<br /><br />Despite our pride in some outstanding journalism, we don’t believe any news outlet overcomes all the blockages and the intimidation of source people that this gatekeeping censorship creates. Quite enough information is successfully hidden to be corrosive. We don’t believe the press should be taking the risk of assuming what we get is all there is when there are so many people silenced. We should be openly fighting these policies and informing the public about the controls.<br /><br />As the Covid death toll mounted in 2020, for instance, <a href="https://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/search?q=HHS">CDC told their</a> media relations staff to remember that just because reporters persist in asking to talk to someone in the agency that doesn’t mean they have to be allowed to.<br /><br />Now with at least six million dead and a history of shortcomings in containing the pandemic, that censorship process at the CDC and many other agencies remains, with officials deciding behind closed doors who can speak to which reporter and what may be discussed.<br /><br />Please note that the extensive legal analysis from <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> finds that these constraints, although very common, are unconstitutional and that many courts have agreed with that. The longer version is a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">legal brief</a>.<br /><br />Other resources are below.<br /><br />As you analyze the threats to free speech it’s critical for this and other nations that you focus on these restraints.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Haisten Willis<br />Chair, Freedom of Information Committee<br />Society of Professional Journalists<br /><br />Kathryn Foxhall<br />Vice Chair, Freedom of Information Committee<br />Society of Professional Journalists<br /><br />Timothy Wheeler<br />Chair, Freedom of Information Task Force <br />Society of Environmental Journalists</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-51667875927651667962022-10-31T17:24:00.000-07:002022-10-31T17:24:01.216-07:00Statement at SPJ Session: The Pervasive Gag Rules Are a Deadly Crime Against Humanity<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>Below is my statement given at a session at the Society of Professional Journalists meeting, <a href="https://mediafest22.org/">MediaFest22</a>, October 27-30. </i><br /><br />Before I say what may sound like a conspiracy theory, I want you to know we have been looking at the gag rules, or “censorship by PIO” for like 14 years. We have had meetings and written letters. Frank LoMonte did in-depth legal analyses showing these controls are unconstitutional. I have talked to many journalists. I was deeply honored last year when SPJ gave me the Wells Key, the highest member award, specifically for this work. <br /><br />So here is what I have been reluctant to say. This massive transition over the last 30-40 years, instituting gag rules everywhere, with power people banning other people from talking to journalists at all or from talking to them without constraints and guards--this is deep, deep corruption of both the insiders and the press. <br /><br />This is a horrific, pervasive crime against humanity. One more time: This is a horrific, deadly crime against humanity. <br /><br />We have at least six million Covid dead, in significant part because the press is so controlled. <br /><br />Six million Covid dead and virtually all 90 thousand people in HHS essentially silenced. That includes some of the most expert people alive and many less exalted insiders who observe and know a lot. <br /><br />We have lost our collective minds. Does anyone believe that if we weren’t frightening people from speaking, including speaking confidentially to reporters, we wouldn’t know much more about this pandemic and the workings of the institutions we rely on? <br /><br />Expand that picture to the fact that these rules are applied to most of the federal government and many entities, public and private, across the nation. Why wouldn’t our systems be riddled with vulnerabilities? <br /><br />Journalists just say, “Good reporters get the story anyway.” <br /><br />That’s it. That’s all we got. <br /><br />Our only justification for looking straight at blatant information control, probably the deadliest thing in the world ever. And we don’t tell the public. <br /><br />Journalists do get stuff. And some of it is seriously impressive and impactful. We have sources. Some people do talk to us. <br /><br />That is very unfortunate for the human race. <br /><br />Because, while we look like we have things covered, there is not a molecule of evidence we get half of what is critical. Or even that individual stories have enough of what is critical to not be misleading. We are oblivious to what people would say if they were not under surveillance, even long after our material is published. <br /><br />On the other hand, there’s much of evidence we do not get everything. Many situations come to light after a long, toxic existence. <br /><br />Professor Jay Rosen said the news system is not designed for public understanding. It’s designed to produce content every day. <br /><br />What can journalists do? Say it loud. Say it with alarm. Tell your community the likely impact of police departments or city administrations, silencing everyone, banning all confidential communication with the press. Investigate it. Expect most people to be passive. That’s the hardest part. <br /><br />Keep saying it. <br /><br />The press may not be acquiescing to these restrictions with the viciousness of Nazi propagandists. But the world is now into an era of existential crises. If we continue ignoring the information control, assuming whatever we get is all there is, this could lead to more deaths than World War II. <br /><br />The session was on October 29 with the title, “Obstruction of Reporting through PIO Controls and Other Means: Responding to the Controls on Free Speech and Free Press.” <br /><br /> <br /><b>Resources </b><br /><br />---Glen Nowak, a former CDC media relations head,<a href="https://www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/"> confirms</a> that the controls on the press at the agency have “worked” for officials in terms of suppressing stories they did not want published. He says they have grown tighter since the 1980s with each presidential administration realizing that the prior one suffered no adverse consequences from imposing the restrictions. <br /><br />---My recent<a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php"> article</a> in the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend which has made the gag rules pervasive in many kinds of entities. <br /><br />-- <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spj.org%2Fres2019.asp%232&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hh7lF2Gy7A4WN9RayoYQd96P1UvCSfMNWQDEz6AXQyY%3D&reserved=0">The Society of Professional Journalists</a> has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian. <br /><br />-- The extensive legal analysis from <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> finds that these constraints, although very common, are unconstitutional and many courts have agreed with that. (The longer version is a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">legal brief</a>.) <br /><br />-- Among many other communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government. <br /><br />-- Journalism groups FOI officers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE">told</a> the New York Times, “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.” <br /><br />-- “Editor and Publisher” <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Fstories%2Fcensorship-by-pio%2C204560%3Fnewsletter%3D205765&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VUkGX1XJXe4nVZVolsmU9AkIT0kSDMEd7SW94W83X1Q%3D&reserved=0">featured</a> the issue in October 2021.</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-71003751514813549382022-10-24T19:32:00.000-07:002022-10-24T19:32:07.987-07:00 Former CDC Media Relations Head: Restraints on Reporters "Worked" for Political Officials<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">David Shipley<br />
Editorial Page Editor<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Karen Tumulty<br />
Deputy Editorial Page Editor<br />
The Washington Post<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Shipley, Ms. Tumulty: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Glen Nowak, a former CDC media relations head,<a href="https://www.quillmag.com/2022/09/22/former-media-relations-head-restrictions-tightened-on-cdc-reporting-long-before-the-pandemic/">
confirms</a> that the controls on the press at the agency have “worked” for
officials in terms of suppressing stories they did not want published.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This means that for years prior to the pandemic
officials hid things from the public, using restrictions including banning
staff from speaking to reporters without oversight through the public
information office. Then people in power, up through the political
administration, decided behind closed doors whether the requested contact could
happen and what might be said.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Nowak will be speaking at the <a href="https://www.spj.org/convention/index.html">meeting</a> of the Society of
Professional Journalists this week about the controls. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Will you join us at the session and talk about why the
Washington Post and others in the press have allowed the restrictions to
continue without openly opposing them or alerting the public?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">My recent<a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php">
article</a> in the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend.
Having covered federal health agencies as the rules tightened over the 30-40
years, I have zero doubt that the press’ acquiescence to the information
control was a top factor in giving us a pandemic far deadlier than it had to
be. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I will argue at the session that this is a crime
against humanity, with the press just as responsible as the insiders.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The automatic response from many journalists about
this situation is, “Good reporters get the story anyway.” With 80,000 staff in
HHS alone virtually silenced, that’s a senseless and fearful assumption to allow
millions of lives to depend on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Journalists do get some seriously impactful stories. However,
it’s very unlikely we get an adequate proportion of what is critical. Various evidence
of journalism’s controlled state includes the many situations that emerge only after
a long, noxious existence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Your editorial, “A Media Masquerade” rightly decries
so-called news websites, paid for by political groups that “launder advocacy through
these sites.” However, presidential administrations use our precious public health
agencies, among other entities, to do some potent laundering by restricting what
legitimate journalists can hear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The SPJ session is “Obstruction of Reporting through
PIO Controls and Other Means; Responding to the Controls on Free Speech and
Free Press,” Saturday, October 29, 2:30 p.m.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I hope to see you. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Also, I will be happy to talk to anyone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Kathryn Foxhall<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">CC: The Post editorial staff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-26236368350371992332022-08-25T17:04:00.000-07:002022-08-25T17:04:20.970-07:00To NYT: Former Media Official Says CDC's Control On Reporters Got Tighter with Each Administration<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This went to Joseph Kahn, Executive Editor of the New York Times, this evening.</span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Mr. Kahn: <br /><br />A former CDC media relations head has <a href="http://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2022/08/former-cdc-media-relations-head.html">laid out</a> in explicit terms how each Presidential administration since Reagan has further tightened controls on reporting on that agency without pushback from the press. <br /><br />Glen Nowak, who held CDC communications positions over decades, says restrictions on communications and on staff people speaking to the press started in the Reagan administration and have built up until all contacts are forbidden unless the reporter goes through the public information office. After that, each request for permission to speak is taken up through the HHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, who is a political appointee. That person can, from behind closed doors, block the contact or control what may be said. He or she may also elevate the request up to the White House. <br /><br />This is part of pervasive trends in the federal government and elsewhere: my <a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php">recent article</a> in Columbia Journalism Review. <br /><br />Probably most press contacts with the agency are deliberately blocked, made infeasible by the lengthy delays, or never attempted by the reporters because they are unlikely to get through, according to discussions with journalists. <br /><br />Reporters often assert they do have staff contacts who speak to them directly without notifying agency authorities. Nowak says that happens sometimes, but most people at CDC are unlikely to defy the rules, because they have been “trained” over years. <br /><br /> I have no doubt the agency’s pandemic failures result, in great part, from years of a severe lack of independent reporting. Reporters can’t go into the facilities; there is no credentialling for entrance; contacting staff without the censorship is banned; and the censorship is guided by political people often for political reasons. <br /><br /> With over six million pandemic dead, all roughly 80,000 staff in the whole Department of Health and Human Services are banned from speaking to reporters without the oversight. Mostly that means they can’t speak at all. <br /><br />It’s true that much impressive reporting is being published. In one critical sense, that’s unfortunate. It camouflages the fact that so many people can’t speak or can’t speak without censors, even when they are close observers of things that impact the public. <br /><br /> Given the pervasiveness of this information control across our institutions; the existential crises we live with; and the other signs of democracy decline which surely interlace with these speech restrictions, the potential harm seems limitless. <br /><br /> As a matter of journalism ethics, news professionals should be explaining the speech restrictions to the public and openly, vigorously opposing them. <br /><br /> Will the New York Times tell the public about the restrictions? <br /><br />I’d be happy to speak to anyone about this. There are resources below. <br /><br /> Thank you. <br />Kathryn Foxhall <br /><br /><b>Resources </b><br /><br /><a href="https://www.spj.org/res2019.asp#2">SPJ</a> has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian. The extensive legal analysis from <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> finds these constraints, although common, are unconstitutional and many courts have agreed with that. (The longer version is a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">legal brief</a>.) Among many other communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy last year asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government. Journalism groups officers <a href="https://wwwnytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE">told</a> the New York Times recently, “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.” <br /><br />CC: <br />Bruce D. Brown <br />Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press <br /><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Reporters without Borders <br /><br />Michael Abramowitz, <br />Freedom House <br /><br />Jody Ginsberg <br />Committee to Protect Journalists <br /><br />Andrew Rosenberg, <br />Union of Concerned Scientists <br /><br />James Geary <br />Neiman Reports <br /><br />Ian Bassin <br />Protect Democracy <br /><br />David Schulz <br />Yale Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic <br /><br />Rep. Steve Cohen <br />U.S. House of Representatives <br /><br />News Media for Open Government <br /><br />New York Times editorial staff <br /><br />Journalists across the nation </span><br /></div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-54655700925107534242022-08-21T18:10:00.000-07:002022-08-21T18:10:59.846-07:00Former CDC Media Relations Head: The Controls on Reporters Got Tighter with Each Administration<span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak, a former media relations head at CDC, talked to me in March 2022 about the massive growth in controls on news reporting on that agency over decades, made progressively tighter by one Presidential administration after another. <br /><br />He was a key source for <a href="https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php">my story</a> for the Columbia Journalism Review about this kind of censorship in the federal government and elsewhere. <br /><br />I’m posting this days after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/briefing/monkeypox-cdc-walensky-covid.html?searchResultPosition=8">news</a> that an external review found that CDC seriously fell short in its Covid 19 pandemic response. A critical question is how we can rely on any of our institutions to perform well when they are using these restrictions to fend off any unwanted public scrutiny. <br /><br />Below are some key statements from Nowak, followed by the full transcript of the interview. <br /></span><br /> <br /><br /><b><u><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Some Key Statements from Glen Nowak </span></u></b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---Since the 1980s, each political administration has looked at what the prior administration did with the restrictions, saw that they had experienced no ill effects from having done the lock down, and proceeded to tighten the controls further. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---Now every contact between a reporter and employee must get permission up through the HHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, who is often a communications person from the presidential campaign. That person, “can say, yes or no, or they can add their recommendations and thoughts to the key messages, and they can decide whether if this is something that should be elevated to either the awareness level at the White House….” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---Scientists and others at CDC and other federal agencies are unlikely to talk to reporters without oversight by the public information office because they have been “trained.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---Nowak was asked on occasion not to speak to certain reporters because the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs felt those reporters’ coverage was not friendly to the administration or CDC or HHS. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---He said, “It clearly does mean that stories lack the views of scientists and experts. That can make it much harder to get a better understanding or good understanding of the research and initiatives and how government scientists interpret the science in the field. It obviously puts much more emphasis on the politics and the political angles and partisanship. It fosters partisanship on a lot of issues.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---“There’s no doubt that these policies do impede the flow of information.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">--- “So, administrations, typically, their priority is trying to remain elected. And they’re often looking at policies through, you know: how will this help or not help when it comes to running for election? How will this help maintain or grow support? And so, yeah, that’s basically the bottom line.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">---It’s really up to the press to say what is missing because of this, because who else will do it? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">000000 </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><u>The Interview Transcript </u></b></span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, we’re recording. Okay. Previously, you talked about your history with CDC first, and then you get into the history of the political stuff. So, would you just do that for me? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Sure, so with CDC, we’re [inaudible] from 1989 to 98, we had a number of projects related to HIV/AIDS prevention, and a wide variety of them, from focus group research to helping stage a national conference, and a lot of community engagement work. And then in 1998, I became the director communications for the nationalization immunization program. I did that for about six years, before becoming the acting, and then permanent director of communication of CDC. Did those two tasks for about six years. And then went back to the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases for a few years as a senior communications person. So, I’ve worked across a number of presidential administrations, Republican and Democrat, and seen all sorts of transitions. So that’s the background. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Assistant Secretaries for Public Affairs </span></b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">What’s important to recognize is that the CDC is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and all the cabinet agencies are part of whatever administration is in power. And so, they’re all parts of the administration. And so that matters, because many of the political appointees include assistant secretaries, including assistant secretaries for public affairs. And those assistant secretaries for public affairs often are people who come in off the campaign trail. They’ve been high level people in the presidential campaigns. And as a result, they are used to using a much different set of criteria and principles when it comes to media access and communication than typically found in large government agencies. Many of them between elections get appointed to federal government jobs and communications in public affairs and often use those same principles while they are in those positions. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Can you give me some examples there? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">What happens is a new administration comes in, very often, they will be filling.... They start at the top. They fill cabinet level. They do cabinet level appointments. And then the next level of appointments are the assistant secretaries. And there’s a wide array of assistant secretaries. And each government agency has probably slightly different titles, but there are assistant secretaries for policy and legislative affairs, secretaries for public affairs. And those people come in and they can define their job. They can define the jobs differently. Some people who come into the secretary for public affairs positions at HHS, for instance, kind of have viewed their job as being the kind of the press secretary for the secretary. And so, their primary focus is on helping the secretary with their communications and media relations. Others take a broader view and view themselves as communications directors for the entire HHS, which meant that they were more actively engaged with the communication people like NIH, CDC, FDA, CMS, all the different operating divisions within HHS. Very often going way back to at least the Reagan administration, in my experience…. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Going back to the Reagan administration? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Each Administration Became More Restrictive;<br /> And Felt No Adverse Consequences </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. When administrations came in, they did have interest in trying to learn about the communication structures of the various operating divisions at HHS, like CDC, FDA, NIH. How they communicated, who they communicated with, how they interacted with the media. And over the decades, it’s evolved to each administration has sort of come in and looked at what the previous administration did in terms of their protocols and procedures. And I think one of the things that’s happened over time, is they’ve all have become far more restrictive in terms of journalists’ direct access to scientists and experts. And they have seen previous administrations do those kinds of things and not seem to experience any adverse consequences. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And again, a lot of it is the background that they bring to their jobs, which is mostly political campaigns. Where in political campaigns it’s quite common to have a message of the day, it’s quite common to talk about things that you want to talk about. You have much greater ability, because you’re running the campaign of one of the two final candidates for US presidency, to determine which reporters, which media outlets to talk to. There’s not really a lot of requests to talk to people aside from the candidate. And so, a lot of those things, you know, when a person becomes the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, that’s the kind of toolkit that they bring to the job: control of messaging, narrower focus on messages. And those things are not necessarily useful or as relevant when you take over communications for a government agency, because government agencies have lots of constituencies, lots of issues. A message of the day approach doesn’t make it make any sense, because there’s just too much going on. Government agencies typically are tens of thousands of people. And they have lots and lots of major programs and initiatives involved with a wide array of issues [inaudible], far broader, far more complex than people have experienced on the campaign trail. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And what kind of impact do you think this is having? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><b><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">Stories Lacking Scientists and Experts Views;<br /> Question of Whether Experts Are Speaking for Agency </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">It clearly does mean that stories lack the views of scientists and experts. That can make it much harder to get a better understanding or a good understanding of the research and initiatives and how government scientists interpret the science in the field. It obviously puts much more emphasis on the politics and the political angles and partisanship. It fosters partisanship on a lot of issues. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">It’s hard to hard to know whether the coverage, and the coverage of the stories would probably have more information, perhaps about the science and helping people understand the science that is used, or the evidence was gathered to inform policies. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I think the challenge, however, is it’s really hard for scientists in government agencies or scientists in general, to just talk only about the science without getting interpretation and policy implications. So, from that perspective, it could actually complicate things and I think that’s one of the reasons that there’s so much concern about it by political people. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">You said this is why there is concern about it from political people? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right, because this is oftentimes with journalists, journalists are going to ask questions about, you know, why was the study done? What were the study methods? What were the strengths and weaknesses of the research methods. But typically, scientists are also going to be asked about their opinions. They’re going to be asked: So, what do you think should be done as a result of these findings? Is the government doing enough about these findings? Is the government doing the right things as a result of these findings? And so those things take scientists very quickly from the science to the policies. And if you’re a government employee, and you’re working in a government agency, whether it’s CDC, NIH or FDA, your personal opinions will probably be seen either, one, as potentially in opposition to the agency in which you’re working for or…. Basically, the major danger is, you are going to be seen, as you know, against your agency’s position or that you’re speaking for the agency, when in fact, you may not. You are probably not speaking, you are not the official person on the issue. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. So, the fear is either that you’re going to be seen as opposing the agency’s position or you’re going to be seen as speaking for the agency when you’re not. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right, because it will be very, very difficult for reporter not to mention in the story that you’re a CDC scientist or an NIH scientist. And I think when people see that, they often then conclude that if you’re speaking, you’re speaking on behalf of the agency. And you just [inaudible], that’s why scientists and others who work with government agencies, when they make presentations at conferences, have to have disclaimers, letting people know that they are not, you know, what they’re presenting and what they’re saying, is not necessarily a reflection of what the government agency, they work for, what their position is. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But that somehow, the thing about adding disclaimers, that somehow isn’t seen as working for an interview with a reporter. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right, because I think there’s a sense that that rarely would make a story. But it would be really specific, especially consistently and over time. And so, when that goes away, and if it doesn’t appear, it’s going to make it look like this person is speaking on behalf of, or if their opinion is not in line with what the administration’s policy is, what the agency’s recommendation is, that they’re ad hoc. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And the story then becomes more about the conflict than about the science. The science rarely speaks for itself. I mean, it always needs to be interpreted, no matter what the results are. There has to be somebody, whether it’s a scientist or a policymaker or elected official, has to make a decision about: so, what do those findings mean? And are those findings, do they warrant doing something? And if they do warrant doing something, what should that be? And that’s where you get significant disagreement. </span><br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /><b>Interpreting the Data </b></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I mean, I see this right now with, I do a lot of work in vaccine acceptance. And I read a lot of research in the space of vaccine acceptance. And a good example of the COVID-19 vaccine. If you look at the CDC’s website and you see where they provide the latest data on vaccination coverage in the United States, what you see is that the vast, almost all people, who are 70 and older, 75 and older, have received recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccine. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But I still see lots of scientists writing papers saying that COVID vaccine acceptance is awful. It’s poor. More needs to be done. And what is lacking in those broad proclamations is any sense of specificity. So, are there areas where COVID-19 vaccination is lagging? Absolutely. Nineteen to 29-year-olds is a really good example. Their rates are the lowest. Forty-to-59-year olds, it would benefit the country to be higher. That’s a group where you see a lot more influence of political ideology. Nineteen-to-29-year-olds, what you see there is just a lack of sense that COVID-19 is a serious illness. But again, if you look at a lot of the scientists who are doing things or a lot of organizations that are concerned, you get a much different picture. It’s often more dire: That we’re failing. And, arguably, we may be failing in some age categories. But we’re tremendously successful among groups that we need to be very successful in protecting them from severe illness and deaths from Covid. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And so, I think that’s one of the concerns is that, you know, a lot of times that gets lost. The nuance, the specificity. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Scientists, Media Attention and an Administration’s Goals </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">There are also scientists who have learned that they like media attention. And they have learned that, if they’re contrarian, they can get more media attention. And so that comes into play. And you see more clearly with COVID on a number of issues, that there are scientists who have disagreed with federal government recommendations. There are scientists who have disagreed with what the professional organization recommends and they like the visibility. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And again, you know, the concern typically from the political communications people who are often at the top who are trying to manage communications is that that doesn’t help the administration accomplish their goals. Because it looks like there’s a lot of division. It looks like there’s a lot of disagreement with their policies, even though there may be little disagreement. But you know, oftentimes journalists’ convention is that, you know, you need to put it in the story, provide different sides. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, and you have talked about this doesn’t help the administration accomplish their goals and their goals are winning the next election? You’ve said something along those lines? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">An Administration’s Priority: Typically, to Remain Elected </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. So, administrations, typically, their priority is trying to remain elected. And they’re often looking at policies through, you know, how will this help or not help when it comes to running for election? How will this help maintain or grow support? And so. Yeah, that’s basically the bottom line. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And of the downsides. You mentioned what are the downsides? Well, when one of the downsides, clearly, is that there could be health issues. And again, if you go back, I mean, the early days of HIV/AIDS in the Reagan administration, they didn’t want HIV, they didn’t see HIV/AIDS, for whatever reason, as a major significant health issue. So, one of the downsides, obviously, is that something that is a significant serious health threat can be underplayed or ignored, if it doesn’t align with political ideology of either the party in power or a party is trying to get power. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. Speaking of that, would you go back? Could we go back to the history a little bit and you talk about when you saw these controls come into effect? What you remember about each administration? One thing that is interesting to me is that you said, or I believe you said, that the Reagan administration was the first one that you knew that instituted these controls. I personally didn’t run into the thing about not talking, people not being able to talk to me without going through the press office until the early 90s. Would you just talk about that history?</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /><b>Evolution of the Administrations’ Controls on Reporters </b></span><br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">A couple of things. So, I first started working with the federal government when the Reagan administration was power. And it was primarily in the communications rather than a media front. So, we ran it from a communications front and that’s an important distinction. So, government agencies. They work with both reporters and journalists and they also support either directly or in house the creation of communications and education campaigns on health issues. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So those are two somewhat distinct tracks. Although, if you do Venn diagram, there would be some overlap. And both of those things, more so with the first, but the latter. So, communication campaigns, and communications campaign materials, often probably have a longer history of having to go through government clearances or review processes. So, if you’re going do a public service campaign, and you work with the ad agency, or you do an inhouse, typically government agencies have to send that through layers of approval. So, it probably goes to the top of their agency for the sign off of the director, and it probably undergoes White House review. And that’s been going on for decades. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And so that was where the Reagan administration really was focused at that time, was what were the materials that would be used as the HIV prevention campaign materials and the CDC was producing them. Their preference was not to have....They had relatively tight boundaries of what could be said or not said in those campaigns. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And on a separate track is, you know, what’s been going on in public affairs space, which is, you know, reporters call and how easy is it to access scientists or other experts in government agencies. And that probably, right, probably the effort to control that process, probably started in the 90s. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And it evolved from being, government agencies being asked to give the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs offices heads up on a major media engagement, news media engagement. So, “Who have you talked to, who have your experts talked to this week?” To them having to get clearance or approval to engage with major media requests. To probably where we are today, where it’s really difficult for journalists to get access to government experts. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Do you, according to your memory or your knowledge or whatever, can you fill that in a little bit? Was it one particular administration or another that just suddenly said no one can speak without going through the Public Affairs Office? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">It’s hard to pin it on one agency, because it evolved. [Laughed.] So, what you had is probably the Clinton administration was probably fine with, you know, you could talk to some media outlets, some reporters, you know, things like findings-related, you know, a publication that came out in MMWR. To if you’re going to have experts be talking to the New York Times, we’d like a head up. To, if you’re going to do a press briefing or press conference, we want a heads up. And I think that’s what happened there is…. that evolved into if you want to do a press conference or a press briefing, you need to have our permission. We need to clear it before you can do it. You can’t do it without our clearance. And then that became, you know, part and parcel of the standard practice of where we are today where it’s not possible for government agencies to probably hold a press conference without the secretary of the cabinet agency and the White House approval. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And you said one administration looked at what the last did and didn’t see any downside that that administration got, so they increased the level of control. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right. So, you go from, you know, we want a heads up about media interviews to we want to approve some media interviews, to we want to approve most media interviews, we want to approve press conferences and press briefings. to we want to approve everything. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So that last sentence was, we want to approve them. They’re saying we want to approve every contact between a reporter and anyone on the inside. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, is that basically where we are now? That every last contact between a reporter and someone the inside must be approved up through the HHS? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yes. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. So, would you say that on a very basic level that just constrains how many contacts there can be? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Even Agency’s Leadership Voices </span></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Often Aren’t There </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, yeah. It constrains the number of contacts, yeah. But, again, this is where you start to see if there are downsides, what are the downsides. Well, the downsides are that government agencies, their voices, aren’t in major news stories on a topic, including the directors of those agencies, because they may not get permission to do press briefings or to engage. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">They have to get clearance as well. It means that there’s delays in responding to journalists, news media requests, because these processes can take, optimistically, hours but possibly days. It means that your access to scientists is further limited, because there’s a good chance that you’re going to be talking to agency director or somebody at the senior management level versus a scientist. So that the director of the government agency, obviously is very smart, an expert, doctor or scientist, but not necessarily in the specific area that reporter or issue entails. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So, for one thing, the people at the higher levels, like the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, decide who can speak, among other things, I mean, these processes, I’m sorry. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. And may be them and may be them in consultation with their counterparts at the White House. Again, I feel, it probably varies across government agencies, depending upon their domain and the administration’s priorities. But it would probably, for major issues, typically, the Secretary for Public Affairs would probably be consulting the Secretary, as well as the White House, their counterparts in the White House Communications Office. Particularly if it’s a highly visible, politically charged issue. </span><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /> <br /><br /><b>Five-Minute Contacts, Problems with Contacts </b></span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, I guess one thing that this does, is that, you know, from my observation, if I’m just doing, I’m a newsletter editor and I’m just doing a story on a Federal Register notice and there is a name oftentimes at the bottom. And it is very helpful if I can call that person and say, you know, does this include, the priorities include substance abuse? That’s not spelled out, maybe, but I need the person to spell it out. And it’s going to take five minutes. That’s just not going to happen. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. But it’s hard to know, for that specific example, because it can also be that there’s federal contracting law that comes into play. And does the person who is the contact, have, whatever they say is going to go to shaping that application. I’m thinking. So if I called, if I am on the faculty of the University of Georgia and I contact that person, and I have some questions, maybe the same questions you have, I suspect, I’m going to get the same answers you’re going to get, because they’re going to be very careful in terms of not wanting to expand the scope inadvertently of that call to request for proposals or not wanting to give somebody a competitive advantage. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And so, there are other things that may come into play. The FDA, for instance, they have to be really careful because they are a regulatory agency. And they know that, you know, their actions can have tremendous impact, including unintended consequences, and they can cause a company stock to go up or down. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And so, if an FDA scientist says something, and that’s their personal point of view, it appears in a story. Again, that person, there is a lot of other things going on, that if they aren’t controlling those things, or trying to reduce the impact of those other things, bad things can happen. </span><br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /><b>Unintended Consequences from Statements </b></span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And many scientists and experts have never dealt with the press, don’t understand that what they’re saying could have bigger, broader impact. That was a constant challenge. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I mean, one of the things is they may not even recognize that the research that they’re doing, that the findings that they got in the study could really change the thinking, the broader thinking, on an issue. Because they’re just thinking “This is a really cool study” and I got the findings I was looking for. And so, there isn’t this broader awareness that, “My research could really change or have an impact on what’s being done in the space.” </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So, you’re saying, you know, this downside might be for the entire public, of a scientist or other such person who doesn’t have that kind of, whatever, public affairs expertise. There’s a downside to the public sometimes for them just speaking without other thought processes going into it? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yes. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Give you an example. [Inaudible.] I got a press release from one of our programs, touting the fact that they had recreated the 1918 pandemic influenza virus. [Laughter.] And it had been accepted for publication in a journal. And my first reaction was “really?” and “Wow?” This is going to be huge. I wonder if the CDC director knows about this research has been going undergoing, right? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Now, it turns out that the person who was CDC director at the time did know, but they were stunned to find out that it had been accepted for publication. And so, they had to alert the Secretary’s office at HHS and they alerted the White House. And the reception when most folks found out was not like, “Wow, this is really cool.” It’s like: “National security considerations.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But again, it’s an example of, you know, the people involved in doing that never thought that, you know, there could be anything, you know, nefarious that you could, that this could turn other things on its head. They were just used to that this isn’t, you know, we did this research and succeeded, we got the outcome we’re striving for, and we want to let the world know. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So that led to the delay in that publication, as people looked at, is this a good idea to publish these kinds of scientific studies? And could somebody read an article like this and have the information they need to recreate that virus? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So that led to the adoption of a thing called dual use research, and in a whole set of criteria regarding approvals for that kind of research, and what can be published regarding those kinds of studies. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But every single day across government agencies, EPA, FDA, you name the government agency, there probably are studies that are being published in journals that have much bigger, potentially much bigger implications than the authors of the manuscript recognize. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Now, would you say that, again, there are studies published in journals that have potential for greater recognition? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><b><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">Leaders, Administrators Don’t Want Surprises </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. And the other thing is, people assume, they have no reason not to, that the directors, of cabinet level agencies know everything that is going on. And those agencies are tens of thousands of people at the small end, but it’s 15,000 people. Whereas EPA is probably 60,000 to 70,000 people. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And what happens, a study gets published and scientists talk about what it means in terms of the big picture. It gets a lot of press pick up. Then journalists rightly want to talk to the director of that agency and say, “Wow, what do you think? Do you agree with your scientists? Like why did you not put this out in a different format?” Then in the White House is calling the director of that agency saying, “Why didn’t you give us a warning, a heads up, that this is coming up because people are now going to be calling us and they want to know what we think.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And people assume, journalists included, that you know, the director or the White House have all that knowledge. And if the honest answer was, “This was the first I’ve learned about it,” people would be like, “Oh my gosh, you’re asleep at the wheel.” When in fact there’s so much going on it’s impossible for any one individual to know and to be expert in all that stuff that is going on at their agency. </span><br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /><b>Our New Age of Massive Information; </b></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Fights for Attention </b></span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So, this is one thing I wondered about. Is part of our problem our level, our very much increased level of knowledge, research, and technology? I mean, if you go back, let’s say maybe the 50s or 60s. There was a lot going on, but not this expansive kind of situation that you’re talking about. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">There are far more journals today than there ever were. There are far more conferences where information is presented than there ever were. There’s far more level of scientific specialization than there ever was. So, you know, you not only have people who have really deep expertise in relatively narrow spaces. And then you’ve got a lot more effort to publicize a lot of the science. The universities and foundations and other places are constantly, every single day, they’re putting out press releases, touting the significance of their findings. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">That’s also one of the things that has changed is not only was there far less proactive media outreach, public outreach, to get attention to studies, now there’s a recognition that if you’re going to be successful in getting media attention with recognition, or policymaker attention, is, you have to have strong statements about what these findings mean or potentially mean. It’s not just enough to say, you know, we found that this virus causes this. It’s more like, you know, we found that this virus is causing this, and therefore, the following steps and actions need to be taken urgently. So, there’s often a lot of advocacy that’s baked into the science that is being publicized. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe we are all dealing with, trying to deal with this, with a human, whatever, status that is many years, even centuries behind the level of research and technology coming at us. I’m thinking of all of us, but I’m thinking in particular of reporters. We tend to....Our job is to get a story. So, if there’s a story sitting there, we pick it up. And it’s not as if our systems are built to be absolutely certain that we understand the entire context. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">New Focus on What the Story Is </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, I think the other thing that’s really important and significant is story, right? So, there has been in the last 10 years or so, it’s the very least, a recognition that you get these stories. [Inaudible] And it’s not just, you’re talking to an expert, to do an FYI, to do a piece where I thought you want to know the following. It is that there’s a recognition that journalists are getting a story. And they want to know, so there is a “what is the story? Is the story that this is good? Is the story that this is bad? Is the story that the world should change as a result of these findings?” So, I think, you know, a lot of this has also been the evolution of knowledge from government agencies, and the people do campaigns that storytelling is central. Storytelling also implicitly picks up that, you know, the “so what” question? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So why are there more controls? Why are there more restrictions? There really is a desire to control the stories. The stories that are told and how the stories are told. And whether they are even told. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And whether they are what? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Agencies, Businesses Have Their Own Platforms </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Even whether a story is told. Ask why people want to control? It’s they want to be able....Government agencies have grown to a place where, you know, thanks to the fact that they’re now far more platforms for people, for government agencies, to put out information owned and controlled directly by the government agency, that there’s a sense that there’s less need to have outside parties. And that if you bring in outside parties like journalists, you do lose control, in many cases over the story that’s being told. You have ceded that to the journalist or to the media outlet. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">At least there’s the feeling that they had their own, with the internet, with social media, they have their own platforms and they don’t need journalists that much anymore. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right. I think you’ve all seen corporations come to the same conclusion. That corporations are also increasingly reluctant to engage with journalists. Unless they’ve got what they think is a news story. Mostly looking for, you know, they’ve got a positive, something positive that they want to [inaudible.] </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Orders Not to Talk to Certain Reporters </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, I wanted to be sure and get.... you talked about the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs telling you to stop talking to certain people. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah, I mean, there were times in my career where I asked by Assistant Secretaries for Public Affairs that we should avoid talking to some reporters because they weren’t friendly to the administration or HHS or CDC in terms of their reporting. And again, oftentimes, you know, it was kind of silly. They drew that conclusion based on headlines. They drew that conclusion based on a single quote in an article. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I’m sorry. That last thing was they drew that conclusion on quotes in articles...? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah, they would conclude perhaps that a reporter was being unfair to the administration, the agency, because the quote, or a quote in article. And it may have come from an outsider commenting on the research or commenting on a policy. And I’m sure that that goes on today, given the focus on political considerations. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />What Happens When a Reporter </span></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Does Not Get Through </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">What happens? I mean, okay, so we have this, we have this relatively small opening, if you say it that way. There’s only, given the entire process that has to go on, there’s only so many reporters that can get through. Okay, so what happens? If I call CDC. I want to talk to somebody and for whatever reason, I’m not one of the favored ones. What happens then? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, what is going to happen is this news reporter is going to have to find somebody from outside CDC, right, to comment, and to talk to about that story. So, you’re going to be probably turning to university experts, other experts, that have popped up in media stories on that topic. You might find former government officials, former agency officials, or scientists to talk about that topic. So, you’re going to have to pivot away from the government agency being the source of information to nongovernment agency sources of information. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And the drawback there is that they may not have the same knowledge base as the CDC experts and therefore could shape, not answer your questions the same way. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, I mean, it would seem obvious that they don’t have the same knowledge of the agency or the program or whatever they’re talking about. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">True, yeah. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I mean, it’s fine to talk to somebody outside about the science or something like that. But they just don’t.... there is much that the inside person knows about the inside situation that somebody on the outside is not likely to know. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">No, absolutely. But I would say two things. One is, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person on the inside is going to divulge that information. They’ve got to be very careful about what they say. Particularly again, depending on what agency they work for, because what they say could have broader, including unintended consequences. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Journalists Have to Make the Case</span></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">As to What’s Missing </span><br /></b><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">But I think it’s also the case that reporters and journalists have to make the case as to what they’re missing. Right? And I think that’s still lacking. I don’t know that journalists have made a strong enough, compelling case, as to, you know, if they’re not able to include the voices of government agency people in their stories, what’s the drawback? Right? And I think that’s journalists’ responsibility. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And even there, I think you got to make the distinction between are you talking about access to people like Rochelle Walensky and agency managers? Or are you talking about the top scientists in an agency, such as the leading influenza experts at CDC, or are you talking about any given scientist or any given CDC employee? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Contractors and Others </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So, there’s a lot of diversity in terms of government agencies. And not everybody who is on the campus at a government agency, whether it’s NIH, FDA or CDC, are actually federal government employees. That is they’re not actually being paid for by....they’re not on the payroll of the federal government. There are people who are working in fellowship positions, right beside CDC or NIH or FDA scientists. But they don’t belong to CDC. They belong to some, you know, an agency like the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. There are many people at CDC who are scientists who work for firms that are contracted to provide scientists and experts who don’t work for CDC or FDA or NIH and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the federal government. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But you as journalists, you may not know, whether the person that you’re trying to reach and get the talk to is a FTE, actually working, is a federal government employee, is someone who’s supported on fellowship in their work, belong to some other organization or someone who is a contractor. And there has been a major shift in many government agencies from fewer FTEs to greater use of contractors. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">What are the contractors told about these policies? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, contractors are not federal employees. One, cannot speak on behalf of CDC. And two, they are subject to the rules and regulations of the organization that employs them. And typically, those organizations have policies that say you can’t talk to the media without permission. It’s no different than if I went to work for a corporation. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Everything through HHS Assistant Secretary </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Would you, with the thing about the permission having to go through, all the way up through the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs? And maybe higher? Is that every agency in HHS? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah, I would guess the thing of the policies [inaudible] When they come in there’s a re-articulation of policy. When an administration comes in, and they appoint an Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, it probably doesn’t take that person very long before they want to know, “So what is the policy?” And they look at the policy and they say, “I like it, I don’t like it or I want to add some things or I want to change it this way.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And again, they want to know because they are being asked by the White House. The White House is telling them, “We want a heads up. We don’t want to read about something first in the New York Times. We want to know that somebody has talked to a reporter at The New York Times, what the story is about and what was said.” And the only way, the most effective way, to make that happen, obviously, is that a scientist gets contacted. And they’ve been trained and if they get contacted by a reporter, they send that reporter to Public Affairs. Public Affairs people contact the reporter, ask the reporter, “What’s the topic? What questions are you, what do you want to learn from your interview with our expert?” And then they can then put that request forward to HHS and tell them, you know, we’ve got this request from a journalist to talk to so and so. And they want to talk to them about you know, what’s going to happen with the upcoming flu season. Here are the key messages that our expert will provide. And then that can be looked at from the Assistant Secretary’s office, and they can say, yes or no, or they can add their recommendations and thoughts to the key messages, and they can decide whether if this is something that should be elevated to either the awareness level at the White House or for getting input from the White House. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And it’s your understanding that this whole process usually has to happen with every with everybody in HHS? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. I don’t know, but I would, I would assume it’s pretty broadly applied. But they would not have different rules for different agencies. Now does that mean that there’s a reporter who’s got a relationship with some expert at FDA or NIH or CDC and calls them directly? Yeah, that certainly does happen.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>When a Reporter Speaks to Someone Directly </b></span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But okay, in that case, where a reporter has a relationship and calls somebody directly, that is probably going to have to be on background? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I would guess in most times, that would be the case. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. And I’m just, for my own understanding here: “On background,” meaning that the reporter could not name the person who’s giving him or her the information? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">But Usually a Reporter Can’t </span></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Speak to Someone Directly </span></b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. I think that’s important to say, because it obviously still happens. Because there is a lot of stuff appearing that we wouldn’t know if it didn’t. But on the other hand, a lot of times, it doesn’t happen. In other words, I would say the majority of people, employees on the inside, will not just talk to a reporter, will not defy the rules. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right. Because, again, many of these agencies have probably been doing these kinds of trainings on what the policies are and what to do for a number of years now. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <b><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />What’s Killed When a Reporter Can’t Speak <br /> To Someone Directly </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, but as reporter, and you know, knowing a lot of other reporters--it’s sensitive--but the importance of being able to take somebody on background cannot be overstated. Because there’s the official story and there is the unofficial story all the time. I mean, just, it’s not a rare, big scandal kind of thing. It’s an everyday occurrence that somebody will just give you tremendously important information if their name isn’t attached to it. So here we are. I mean, to a huge extent, we have killed on-background flow of information. I guess I’m just asking for comment here. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">There’s no doubt that these policies do impede the flow of information. But again, I think, it gets back to journalists have to make the case as to what is the important, significant downside to that. To the public, to society, to a broader group. And I think that’s where they haven’t made a strong and compelling case. </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"> Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Are you saying it’s on us? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <b><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">It’s on Journalists </span></b><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I think so. Yeah. Because who else is it going to be on, right? [Inaudible] Media outlets and journalists say that, “Here’s who loses when this happens. Here’s what is lost when this happens. Give some examples that we would cite that show the importance of being able to access people. Here are the stories that would surface that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. I think you do see some of that these days, as media outlets try to increase their subscriptions. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So why do you think we’re not doing that? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, one, is fewer reporters. And so that makes a difference. Second, many reporters come in, who are out there, are more along general assignments or they are freelancers. And so, there’s no organization behind them in terms of organizational clout to challenge things. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I think, you know, they have learned some, many reporters have learned to quickly pivot because they are on deadlines. They have to pivot, right? That, you know, “If I don’t have three days or four days to wait for a government agency to respond to this so I’ll just pivot. I’ll find another expert. At the end of the day, what I probably need is a quote or two. And I can get that quote or two relatively easy for somebody else.” </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Would you agree that political people, public affairs people, communicators: They know this, very well? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. They look at journalists [inaudible]. So, your story is going have a “so what?” And a point of view and it may not be flattering. And if I don’t, if I have a sense that it’s not going to be flattering, well, then why should I cooperate? There’s no upside but there could be significant downside. And again, their assumption probably is, in many cases that reporter will go find somebody else to talk. Or their assumption could be by not cooperating with the story won’t ever see light or it won’t happen. [inaudible]. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Just a second. The tape recorder dropped and I’m trying to make sure it’s still going. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But are we in a situation where reporters are knocking on a lot of doors. They go to the door that makes sense. Hopefully, they go to the door that make sense first. But then if that doesn’t work, they go to the next door. Okay, so we just never know what is behind that first door or third or fourth. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I’m sorry that last sentence, I don’t think I got. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I just don’t know what else to say. I mean, it’s true. Yes. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. That really. That puts that puts us on ethical hotspot, doesn’t it? Or I’m sorry. I’m leading you. Does that put us on an ethical hotspot? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">How so? I’m not understanding the question. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, here we are. And this is happening routinely. I mean, a great deal. In that we can call this process of just fending reporters off or just not responding. Because there’s not a downside to that. So, reporters are getting stories. But we’re not, would you say we’re not, we’re not telling the public that there is a great deal of stuff we’re probably not getting because of these closed doors. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Actually, that would be true even if the doors are open. So, I don’t know that really changes much. That gets back to the issue of, you know, as journalists being able to well articulate compelling shortcomings of what the current approach is by government agencies. And administrations, more specifically. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, give me give me an example that. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />Too Much Access Is Not Useful for the Agency </span><br /></b><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Your assumption is that a journalist could somehow reach somebody at NIH, or FDA or CDC or EPA scientists directly, that would resulted in.... What would it result in? I guess, is my question. Would that result in more stories, better stories, different stories? And why wouldn’t those stories be better or different? What would change? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And I think that’s what journalists haven’t done a good job of articulating. Just making the case that there should be better and greater access to scientists and government agencies is too general and it doesn’t really answer, well, the question of “So what? And why would that matter to the broader public? Why would that matter to elected officials? Why would that matter to policy makers?” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And again, I think the lack of specificity that journalists have in this in this space also hurts, right? I mean, the notion that it should be just kind of access to anybody in a government agency. Because right now, if you don’t have good access to the leaders at the top of government agencies, you don’t have access to the senior experts and scientists in the domain. And I think you have to start with, you know, figuring out, you know, what is really important, what’s most important, what’s the priority? If it’s seen as, “We want to access to anybody, [inaudible] disgruntled employees or unhappy scientists.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, then that’s going to make the cases for the good reason [inaudible] because it’s not useful to the government agency or to the administration to a lot of stories that involve disgruntled employees or people who hold positions that are in opposition to policies or mainstream thinking. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Are you saying we have to....we have to make the case somehow that this, that our process, our reporting is useful to the agency to be able to get to a person. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, [inaudible] yes, but I think that there is a bigger issue that your stories will be better, and then you got to say in what way does it make it better. And what does better mean. And I think you have to make the argument that democracy is better served or the public is better served or voters are better served. That’s what you got to do, making the argument. And maybe it’s not just journalists. It’s probably more the case of media, major media organizations have to be making, have to be involved in it as well. It can’t be individual journalists. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, in terms of disgruntled employees or people who oppose the current policies or whatever. Frankly, history has shown that those are some of the best sources. And, of course, journalists have to be aware that they are only giving us one side of the story, often. But you know, Deep Throat was disgruntled employee. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Right, but, again, political people aren’t going to say, “Well, that’s great. We want to help you do that.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So, I think if those are the examples [inaudible] you should not be surprised that there’s a lot of desire to control access, because those aren’t the stories that government, that elected officials who are in power in the administration are looking to foster. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And it gets back to the point that, you know, if anything, they’ve seen that the controls help make it harder to do those stories and diminish the visibility and prevalence of those stories. So, from their perspective, it works. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I’m sorry. The last thing was the controls diminish the prevalence of the stories they don’t want? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yeah. Right. So, from their perspective, it works. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I don’t know how to say this. How bad of a mess are we in? I mean, from the discussion, it would seem people at the tops of agencies and political people are controlling the information for their own purposes. And to, you know, to win the next election. This is, this is…. Is this not a huge danger to public health? We are now still in the public health crisis of the century. When it started, the narrative was CDC made a number of bungles and they were not as prepared for this as they should have been. You have to look back and say for the last however many years the information has been controlled according to certain people’s thoughts and purposes. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, I guess I want to say the administrations have, you know, tried to control and restrict access to government employees. And that’s evolved into controlling access to probably the people who are at the top. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">So where do you think we go from here? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I think it is up to journalists and media organizations. I don’t think that’s my role. I think my point has been that, you know…. Do I personally think that there should be better and greater access? Yes. But what really matters is that journalists and media organizations need to make the case as to what gets lost when there is tight control by the administration and agencies, in their engagements with journalists, in the media, and then they have to be able to have sound examples. And those examples probably have to be in the space of what gets lost in terms of holding government agencies accountable. Strengthening democracy. In those spaces you have to make the case, you know, what does the broader public lose? What do voters lose when these kinds of steps are taken. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">What do you think about the statement, which I get, someone talking about this gets, repeatedly from journalists and that is, “Good reporters get the story anyway.” </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Well, I think there’s a lot of truth to that. Now, it also overlooks the fact that there are fewer journalists these days, and that there are fewer journalists who had deep expertise in a specific beat, whether it’s EPA, CDC, health, science, medicine, you name it, there’s just fewer of them. And so, I mean, I think it [inaudible]. But media organizations are trying to attract audiences. They’re trying to attract viewers, listeners, subscribers, readers. And some of them have been able to adapt. And they still have strong audiences. Others have not adapted and gone out of business or gone away. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And I think, you know, again, part of this is media organizations and journalists, I think need to better articulate what they are looking for. Because there are so many media platforms. And they’re all interested in doing quote, unquote, stories, but they’re not all journalists and they are not all following journalistic principles. They’re just looking for content. And, again, that, again, is one of the reasons that government agencies have adopted these kinds of controls, because.... You have to decide how you are going to limit access and what constitutes a media outlet. But so it’s a really complicated space. And I think that just offering up, you know, general points that we need better access: who is we? And what specifically, are you talking about when you say access? What does that mean? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">I have an 11:30 a.m. meeting I have to attend. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Yes, I realized I’m kept you a while. I really appreciate everything. Anything else? I’m just looking over my notes to see... </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">If it gives you a story, and I think it’d be really important to get, you know, to talk to journalists about what do they miss and what happens when these kinds of things....That’s the voice that we have not heard the most. Or among the most. To be back to my points about articulating what is lost. And [inaudible], probably the voice of media organizations, because it seems like that’s been kind of silent and there’s all this stuff is happening. Are they okay with them? And if they’re okay with it, why are they okay it? And if they are not okay with it, what do they think? And how are they going to involved in changing the status quo? </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Very true. Very true. Well, I do have a story that’s under consideration by the Columbia Journalism Review and it gets to some of those things, you know: the silence of the journalists about this. Okay. Let me let you go. I hope I can get back to you if I realize there’s something I’ve missed touching on. I super appreciate this. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Glen Nowak </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Sure. Good luck and happy.... I look forward to seeing where this goes. </span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Okay. Thank you very much, Glen.</span></span></div></div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-75275513286666552552022-07-24T11:59:00.001-07:002022-07-24T12:13:03.790-07:00Whistleblower Summit Panel Will Look at the Controls on Journalists, Censorship by PIO, etc.<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Tomorrow we will be talking about the restraints on reporters at the Whistleblowers' Summit: <a href="https://www.whistleblowersummit.com/summit-panels">Summit
Panels (whistleblowersummit.com)</a><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Frank LoMonte, counsel for CNN, will discuss why it's illegal to ban employees in public agencies from speaking to reporters without oversight.<br /><br />Haisten Willis, Chair of the Freedom of Information Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists, will talk about the constraints and SPJ's actions to oppose them.<br /><br />I'll be talking about the statement from Glen Nowak, former head of media relations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who says controls over reporters’ contacts appeared during the Reagan administration and because there was no pushback, each presidential administration further tightened them.<br /><br />A list of resources is <a href="http://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2022/07/resources-on-constraints-on-reporting.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Registration for the summit itself is free:<br /><a href="https://www.whistleblowersummit.com/tickets">Shop WIP (whistleblowersummit.com)</a><br /></span><br />Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-26583866584579293082022-07-24T11:19:00.000-07:002022-07-24T11:19:58.979-07:00Resources on Constraints on Reporting, Gag Rules, Censorship by PIO, etc.<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>Below are resources on the constraints on reporting, gag rules, censorship by PIO, etc.<br /></i><br />-- Last year 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827&msclkid=925284dcad6311eca3442674a5ade6cf">wrote to</a> the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government and for restoring journalists' access to agencies. <br /><br />--The extensive legal analysis from <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> finds that these constraints, although very common, are unconstitutional and that many courts have agreed with that. The longer version is a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">legal brief</a>. <br /><br />--As the Covid death toll mounted in 2020, for instance, <a href="https://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/search?q=HHS">CDC told their</a> media relations staff to remember that just because reporters persist in asking to talk to someone in the agency that doesn’t mean they have to be allowed to. <br /><br />--<a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spj.org%2Fres2019.asp%232&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hh7lF2Gy7A4WN9RayoYQd96P1UvCSfMNWQDEz6AXQyY%3D&reserved=0">The Society of Professional Journalists</a> has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian. <br /><br />--“Editor and Publisher” <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Fstories%2Fcensorship-by-pio%2C204560%3Fnewsletter%3D205765&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VUkGX1XJXe4nVZVolsmU9AkIT0kSDMEd7SW94W83X1Q%3D&reserved=0">featured</a> the issue in October, 2021. <br /><br />-- The Yale Law School Access and Accountability Conference last October had a “Fighting Censorship by PIO” session. (The agenda is <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.yale.edu%2Fisp%2Finitiatives%2Ffloyd-abrams-institute-freedom-expression%2Faccess-accountability-conferences%2Faac-2021&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZecKiTfhyiGDM2QXbZs0tadeh65rWH76bjExnkQEM%2Fk%3D&reserved=0">here</a> and the PIO papers [Foxhall and LoMonte] are <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyale.app.box.com%2Fs%2F9ed5htve55jhw2qcfl3w9wsnc7il304d&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OiPUdhhTfDS4f%2BcpTQkQyGLIdLPGO3sGE96YSOKb4rA%3D&reserved=0">here</a>. The video is <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fplaylist%3Flist%3DPLHZoWaU1n8jTS4NAKbA3Xl3zGIHOTY8Xa&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=798ves3sXAVADzmGAttxqWBzBeg4%2B%2Bt723RHXTcTgvo%3D&reserved=0">here</a>, session number 5.) <br /><br />--In 2019 there was legislation in Congress with a provision to allow federal scientists to talk to reporters without prior approval. The provision was <a href="file:///C:/Users/Kathryn%20Foxhall/Desktop/000-My%20Current%20Folder,%20Sept%2013%202021/Government%20Access-x/PR%20Office%20Censorship:%20Committee%20Kills%20Provisions%20to%20Allow%20Federal%20Scientists%20to%20Talk%20to%20Reporters%20without%20Prior%20Approval">killed in committee</a>. <br /><br />--A <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D43mWwZSSRhQ&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xfk%2FKh8x0PoB6iASQ9E%2Fk8F89G0Z0CDApNwgpEzEEU4%3D&reserved=0">recent webinar</a>, “The Gagging of America,” from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing, has a discussion with First Amendment Attorney Frank LoMonte on blockages in both the public and private sector. <br /><br />--Last year the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprofficecensorship.blogspot.com%2F2021%2F04%2Fbidens-epa-officials-contact-between.html&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9wUDz4dV0DWTdQv73BJGvn850i2MMeJyASr3p0YnDIk%3D&reserved=0">affirmed</a> that it would continue these controls. <br /><br />--Kathryn Foxhall’s <a href="http://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/">blog</a> as other information.</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-71425514933566820462022-07-07T15:29:00.000-07:002022-07-07T15:29:39.789-07:00Doing It Again: Talking about White House Access, Being Silent about the Other Censorship<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple writes today on the lack of access for some reporters in some areas of the White House. <br /><br />He quotes one reporter as saying, “It should be a big thing for us in this country: How to hold officeholders accountable if we’re not able to question them?” <br /><br /> As with previous <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-suspends-credentials-cnn-correspondent-jim-acosta/story?id=59045396">controversies</a> about White House credentials and access, I am flabbergasted at our determination not to talk about the massive other controls on press access, for physical entry and for contacts with people, in Washington and across the country. <br /><br /> Below is part of my letter to Wemple and about 280 White House correspondents. <br /><br /> "Regarding the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/07/white-house-reporters-access-biden/">article</a>, 'Some White House Reporters Object to Exclusion from Biden Events:' <br /><br /> "A number of agencies including HHS have no credentialling system for reporters’ access and they ban all staff from talking to the press without oversight by authorities/PIOs. The system on its face prohibits confidential communications and it means many reporters’ supplications for contact are blocked, deliberately or otherwise. <br /><br /> "Should we not talk about this? Is it just too big a part of our culture now, after 30-40 years of this tightening? Should journalists just assume whatever sources we get are enough? <br /><br />"As just one example, over two years into the pandemic with catastrophic missteps and at least six million dead, nearly all the 11,000 or so employees at CDC are essentially silenced….. <br /><br />"We <a href="https://wwwnytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0qjGgN1WwgrntRmxEUTZSsZQwSWAh2yzCZCxHO4gr3lR7HHq1sxaQZEhE">told</a> the New York Times recently, “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.” <br /><br />"The next catastrophe is coming. We need for journalists to stand up on this. <br /><br />"I’d be happy to talk to anyone."</span>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-53577919110895524372022-06-20T17:29:00.001-07:002022-06-20T18:19:23.789-07:00Letter to NYT: Gag Rules Are a Big Danger to Free Speech<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> “One of the most dangerous threats to free speech is the tremendous growth over three to four decades of government agencies, businesses and others barring employees from speaking to journalists,” freedom of information officers of journalism organizations <a href="Freedom%20of%20information%20officers">told</a> the New York Times last week.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />The letter is in response to the paper’s editorial board’s pledge to look at censorship in the United States<span style="background-color: white; color: #363636;">.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #363636;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/opinion/letters/biden-election-2024.html?searchResultPosition=1#link-72b2c623">Opinion | Should Biden Run for Re-election in 2024? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)</a></span></span></p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-65582004489206957492022-05-31T18:21:00.001-07:002022-05-31T18:21:33.131-07:00To Wash Post: Baby Formula: The Press Was Not There; Press Contacts Were Controlled<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Open Letter to the Washington Post: </span><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I’m questioning the propriety of the press covering what was known about baby formula issues prior to the shortage without talking about the censorship on newsgathering in Food and Drug Administration and elsewhere. <br /><br />FDA employees, like people in many agencies, are prohibited from talking to reporters without guards from the public information office. Probably most contacts with reporters never happen because of delays or blockages through that permission-to-speak process. <br /><br />About 27 years ago at least five specialized newsletter reporters walked the agency’s halls getting many stories that were not officially ordained. That kind of networking with employees might very well have brought out the formula issues well before they became a crisis. <br /><br />Staff who may have seen this problem coming are in effect blocked from getting to know reporters, talking to them informally or, often, talking to them at all. <br /><br />We in the press like to think that with all our talent, along with contacts with a few insiders who defy the no-talk rules, we get the whole story anyway. We don’t tell the public about this censorship culture which is now pervasive in many U.S. public and private entities. Our silence is shameful and our assumption about how much we know is repeatedly shown to be wrong. <br /><br />We turn a blind eye to official information control and thereby turn a blind eye to many hazards to children and others. <br /><br />The extensive legal analysis from <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> finds that these constraints, although very common, are unconstitutional and that many courts have agreed with that. The longer version is a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">legal brief</a>. <br /><br />May we talk about this? <br />Thanks, <br /><br />Kathryn Foxhall<br /><br /><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><b>Resources </b><br />--<a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spj.org%2Fres2019.asp%232&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hh7lF2Gy7A4WN9RayoYQd96P1UvCSfMNWQDEz6AXQyY%3D&reserved=0">The Society of Professional Journalists</a> has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian. <br /><br />-- “Editor and Publisher” <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Fstories%2Fcensorship-by-pio%2C204560%3Fnewsletter%3D205765&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VUkGX1XJXe4nVZVolsmU9AkIT0kSDMEd7SW94W83X1Q%3D&reserved=0">featured</a> the issue in October 2021. <br /><br />-- The Yale Law School Access and Accountability Conference last October had a “Fighting Censorship by PIO” session. (The agenda is <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.yale.edu%2Fisp%2Finitiatives%2Ffloyd-abrams-institute-freedom-expression%2Faccess-accountability-conferences%2Faac-2021&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZecKiTfhyiGDM2QXbZs0tadeh65rWH76bjExnkQEM%2Fk%3D&reserved=0">here</a> and the PIO papers [Foxhall and LoMonte] are <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyale.app.box.com%2Fs%2F9ed5htve55jhw2qcfl3w9wsnc7il304d&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OiPUdhhTfDS4f%2BcpTQkQyGLIdLPGO3sGE96YSOKb4rA%3D&reserved=0">here</a>. The video is <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fplaylist%3Flist%3DPLHZoWaU1n8jTS4NAKbA3Xl3zGIHOTY8Xa&data=05%7C01%7Cemily.staub%40cartercenter.org%7C19f9807777284d70903008da22f2874d%7C16decddb28ac4bea8fc95844aadea669%7C0%7C0%7C637860722459002068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=798ves3sXAVADzmGAttxqWBzBeg4%2B%2Bt723RHXTcTgvo%3D&reserved=0">here</a>, session number 5.) <br /><br /> <br />BCC: <br /> Laura Reiley <br />Kimberly Kindy<br /> Washington Post Editorial Staff <br />Senate HELP Committee <br />House Energy and Commerce Committee <br />Media Reporters <br />Health Reporters</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">American Society of Journalists and Authors</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">American Society of Media Photographers</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">News Leaders Association</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Associated College Press</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Center for Scholastic Journalism<br />Colorado Press Women<br />Colorado State University</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors<br />iSolon.org<br />Media Freedom Foundation and Project Censored <br />National Association of Black Journalists<br />National Association of Hispanic Journalists<br />National Federation of Press Women<br />National Newspaper Association<br />National Press Photographers Association</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">National Writers Union<br />Native American Journalists Association<br />North American Agricultural Journalists<br />OpenTheGovernment.org<br />Radio Television Digital News Association<br />Society of American Business Editors and Writers<br />Society of Environmental Journalists<br />Society of Professional Journalists<br />Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University<br /><br /></span></div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-33366283199689984262022-05-21T11:48:00.000-07:002022-05-21T11:48:11.196-07:00To Energy + Commerce Re: Baby Formula Shortage: FDA Kicked the Press Out about Years Ago <div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The following letter went to the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee: </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Chairman Pallone: <br /><br /> Regarding the baby formula shortage and what was known about circumstances at FDA: the controls on news reporting at the agency have become extreme over a long time. It is not realistic to expect that problematic situations will not develop and fester when governmental agencies heavily restrict public scrutiny of themselves. <br /><br /> Over the last two to three decades, many agencies, businesses and other institutions have instituted policies banning employees (and sometimes others) from speaking to reporters without oversight by authorities, often through public information officers. These restrictions prohibit all contacts not overseen by authorities, even though confidential conversations are so often critical to the public’s understanding. <br /><br /> Also, in reality, the system works so that a huge portion of contacts between reporters and staff is blocked altogether. <br /><br /> A number of journalism organizations have worked opposing these controls for a long time. I work with the Society of Professional Journalists and others on the issue. <br /><br /> I would like to talk to your staff about this.....<br /> Please note also: <br /><br />--Last July, 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827">wrote to</a> the Office of Science and Technology Policy asking that the blockages be ended and that reporters be given credentials to enter facilities. It was one of numerous efforts over the years. We have not received any substantial response despite several follow-up contacts with OSTP. <br /><br />--Importantly, an extensive legal analysis from <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> finds that these mandates for reporters to go through PIOs, although very common, are unconstitutional and that many courts have agreed. (The longer version is this <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861791">law journal article</a>.) <br /><br /> ---SPJ sponsored seven <a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys">surveys</a> (2012 to 2016) that showed the censorship is pervasive in federal, state, and local government, education, government science agencies and police departments (see some summaries below). <br /><br /> ---Journalism groups recently published a letter in Science magazine on this issue: <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo6353">Scientists’ right to speak to the press (science.org)</a>. <br /><br /> We don’t know about FDA but apparently contacts with the press for all or most of HHS must go through one small office, the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs. Thus, a very few people under heavy conflict of interest and political pressure decide what all of us can hear about agencies’ workings. <br /><br /> As Covid deaths began to mount in 2020, an <a href="https://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/2020/08/some-insights-on-where-we-are-with-hhs.html">official told</a> CDC media relations staff that just because individual reporters persist in asking to speak to someone, doesn’t mean they are allowed to. <br /><br /> Probably the top reason for media organizations’ silence about the controls is their long-time work ethic and strong financial incentive to assume--and to convince their audience--that good reporters get the story anyway. It’s more likely the press gets some stories and assumes what we get is all there is. <br /><br /> In addition, journalists fear, with good reason, that PIOs and other powers will block whatever access reporters have if they complain. <br /><br />There are other resources below. I’d be happy to talk to anyone about this.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Kathryn Foxhall</span></div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-70480026729633478012022-05-17T17:06:00.000-07:002022-05-17T17:06:57.448-07:00U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Staff Contact Information Disappears<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The Department of Health and Human Services <a href="https://directory.psc.gov/employee.htm">employee directory</a>, which has been online for many years, has suddenly lost email and telephone listings. Names and professional positions are there, but there is no way to make connections. <br /><br /> I emailed five public affairs officers asking whether it is fair to say that the lack of an HHS directory with contact information is unprecedented, since even before the internet anyone could buy an HHS directory at the Government Printing Office.<br /><br />I also asked if it is fair to say that no contact information is listed on the <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/contacts/index.html">HHS website</a> for public affairs contacts, other than the <a href="mailto:media@hhs.gov">media@hhs.gov</a>.<br /><br />I wrote to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra saying this elimination of contacts would appear to be another step in the direction of information control that has <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/media_policy.pdf">included banning</a> employees from speaking to reporters without notifying agency authorities and indicating to staff that they have no responsibility to speak the press.<br /><br />One report said told the employee directory change was done in the name of security.<br /><br />I told Becerra, “Security is not best served with one of the largest government agencies in the world broadly impacting public health from behind nearly impenetrable walls of restrictions with unreachable, unknowable people.<br /><br />“I’m asking that all these barriers be removed. Note that many journalism groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/pdf/scientific-integrity-joint-letter-to-white-house-task-force-final.pdf">have asked</a> the same about the previously instituted restrictions.”<br /><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I have not had an answer yet.<br /></span><br /></div>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-43544060119824668182022-04-22T17:23:00.000-07:002022-04-22T17:23:12.409-07:00 Teachers’ Union President: Barriers to Talking Are Maybe Not Putin, But They are Very Dangerous<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">FYI to readers: <br /><br />This is a story picked up from last month, but the points are still good.<br /><br />You would not compare the bans on employees speaking to the press to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, because Putin is a murderer, said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, of the largest teachers’ unions. <br /><br />“But the roots of it are very dangerous. The roots are basically saying, ‘We’re going to stop people from giving real, accurate, truthful information about conditions about public good….’” <br /><br />Weingarten, who spoke at a Sunshine Week <a href="file:///C:/Users/Kathryn%20Foxhall/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/124TIAS2/Video%20&%20highlights:%20Opening%20access%20%E2%80%93%20How%20to%20push%20back%20on%20restrictive%20communication%20policies%20in%20education%20(and%20beyond)%20-%20Journalism%20Institute%20(pressclubinstitute.org)">online session</a> sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Press Club, was pointing specifically to the order the Philadelphia School Board <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/philadelphia-school-district-considering-gag-order-to-prevent-employees-from-talking-to-media/ar-AAQyig2">has considered</a> that would prohibit employees from speaking to the press without express permission from the district. <br /><br />She said, “Public education is a public good. The public is entitled to know what’s going on. Teachers should be able to say what’s going on. There should not be this censorship about this.” <br /><br />Weingarten also told the audience that if a school or district refuses to allow a reporter to speak to an employee, it’s indeed possible that the union can help getting the two together. <br /><br />On the legal side of that question, First Amendment Attorney Frank LoMonte said, journalists should know from the start that a public school or university is a government agency and, “The Supreme Court has said over and over again public employees do not check their First Amendment rights at the door when they sign on to a government job and that applies to teachers or principals or coaches or anybody in public school.” <br /><br />“And so, these pervasive policies, which we see at all levels of government, including education, that restrict employees from being able to talk without permission, they’re all against the law,” LoMonte said. He is former director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Expression and has recently become counsel for CNN. <br /><br />Delece Smith-Barrow, education reporter at Politico, said, “One thing that journalists face so often is not being able to get the information that they want, or get access to someone who has the information that they need, and it’s not that we need it personally, it’s that news consumers need it.” <br /><br />Some of the blockage, she said, “Can look like slow or no response to a FOIA request….Maybe they’re a principal, an administrator that is central to your story who you need to reach and you’re being told by the school district that person can’t speak with you.” <br /><br />Eva-Marie Ayala, the Education Lab editor for The Dallas Morning News, described reaching out to an employee in a local agency and having a public relations person get back, really upset, and saying the reporter was being nefarious to go around the PR office. <br /><br />“And you know, that is our job,” Ayala said. If a reporter is going to name someone in the paper, perhaps when there is an allegation against them, the journalist has a duty to go above and beyond to reach out to the person and get their side of the story, she stated. <br /><br />Ayala also said some school boards have policies that only one person on the board, typically the school board president, should speak to the press. She said, “These school board members are elected by the public. They don’t elect one person or the whole board. They individually elect the school board trustees to speak. We reach out to them as needed. If they decline to comment, we put that in there. Again, it is all about transparency.” <br /><br />Ayala said one of her pet peeves, which she gets all the time, is the request to send her questions in advance when she asks for an interview. She says she replies that she usually doesn’t share questions in advance, but she might outline some of the topics she is interested in. That’s because, the interviewee typically will say something that causes the reporter to ask a different question, and that will trigger another response from the source person. <br /><br />“And, so it’s a conversation. It’s not just a one-way street.” <br /><br />Further reporting on the panel is on the <a href="https://www.pressclubinstitute.org/event/opening-access-how-to-push-back-on-restrictive-communication-policies-in-education-and-beyond/">NPC website</a>. <br /></span><br /> Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-80525120031584253172022-03-18T18:13:00.000-07:002022-03-18T18:13:00.250-07:00Six Million Pandemic Dead; HHS Staff Still Banned from Speaking to Reporters without Minders<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The following letter went to Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, March 18.<br /><br />Secretary Becerra:<br /> <br />This is a question for the news conference planned for tomorrow. It’s being copied to 1000 plus health reporters.<br /> <br />Over several presidential administrations bans on HHS employees speaking to reporters without notification of the authorities have been implemented and have grown progressively tighter.<br /> <br />Among other things, in the years prior to the pandemic CDC blocked and limited reporters, with decisions made behind closed doors about who could talk to which reporter and what could be said.<br /> <br />Now we have six million dead globally and the blockages on reporters continue.<br /> <br />---Why is it ethical for HHS to prohibit all contacts between reporters and staff unless they are overseen by PIOs or others?<br />---Why is it ethical for HHS to block the information that reporters would get from those staff members who the agency successfully intimidates from telling reporters things because of the oversight or the total blockages?<br /> <br />---Why is it safe for the public for reporting to be under such controls? Even in light of all the problems with free speech, why is it safer for information flow to be under the control of a few people in power with their own conflicts of interest?<br /> <br />I’m respectfully requesting an honest discussion and not general answers like “HHS is very open” or “We put out a lot of information.”<br /> <br />Below is a letter opposing the controls sent by journalism groups to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, as well as other resources.<br /> <br />Please note, also below, that an extensive analysis by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information says these requirements for reporters to always go through PIOs is illegal.<br /> <br />Thanks for your attention.<br /> <br />I’d be happy to talk to anyone at most anytime.<br /> <br />Kathryn Foxhall<br /><br />000<br /> <br /><b>Resources</b><br /> <br /> <br />---A<a href="https://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/spj-sej-letter-office-of-science-and-technology-policy01262022.pdf"> letter</a> from freedom of information officers of the Society of Professional Journalists and Society of Environmental Journalists went to the Office of Science and Technology Policy decrying the recent scientific integrity report that endorsed these restrictions. We said the policy, “not only violates the scientists’ First Amendment rights, it tramples on the public’s right to know, and it contributes to the spread of misinformation and distrust in government.”<br /> <br />---Last July, 25 journalism and other groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827">wrote to</a> OSTP asking that the blockages be ended and that reporters be given credentials to enter facilities.<br />---Please note in particular that <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information</a> has an extensive legal analysis that finds these rules, although very common, are unconstitutional and many courts have agreed with that. It also says that journalism organizations, themselves, could sue to stop the blockages.<br />--<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHZoWaU1n8jTS4NAKbA3Xl3zGIHOTY8Xa">Yale Law School’s</a> recent conference on access included “Censorship by PIO.”<br />--<a href="https://www.spj.org/res2019.asp#2">The Society of Professional Journalists</a> has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian.<br />--<a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp#surveys">SPJ has sponsored surveys</a> showing the restraints in federal, state, and local government, education, government science agencies and police departments.<br />--A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mWwZSSRhQ">recent webinar</a>, “The Gagging of America,” from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing, has a discussion of blockages in both the public and private sector.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span><br /></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="galileo-ap-layout-editor" style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; color: black; min-width: 100%; table-layout: fixed; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="spacer editor-col OneColumnMobile" valign="top" width="100%"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5583387474833490664.post-17863090127514825302022-03-18T15:57:00.000-07:002022-03-18T15:57:52.044-07:00For Sunshine Week: Controls that Have Become the Norm; No Answer from Biden Science Office<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">INDIANAPOLIS – Editor’s Note: The following column was written by Kathryn Foxhall, <a href="https://www.spj.org/index.asp">Society of Professional Journalists</a> <a href="https://www.spj.org/com-foi.asp">Freedom of Information Committee</a> vice chair, for Sunshine Week.<br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Last year, 25 groups <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1827">wrote to President Joe Biden’s administration</a> saying journalists’ jobs are intentionally hindered by the government in many ways. These include, as we wrote, “barring government scientists, issue specialists and other government employees from communicating directly with reporters and even refusing to allow interviews of such scientists or specialists, even with oversight by a public information officer.”<br /><br />Addressed to the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the letter was signed on by groups including the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Newspaper Association, the Society for Environmental Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists.<br /><br />The issue is far from new, of course. Over the past three decades the forced monitoring and blocking of journalists has become tighter and tighter. Some journalists say one presidential administration learns from the last and then builds the controls stronger.<br /><br />Foundational to the restrictions is the message that agencies or offices give to the employees — written or otherwise — that they may never speak to a journalist without monitoring from the bosses, often through public information offices.<br /><br />This means that when a reporter contacts a staff member at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Food and Drug Administration, that person will usually tell the reporter they have to go through the PIOs. From there, officials decide behind closed doors whether there will be an answer at all, who can speak and what can be said.<br /><br />A <a href="https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf">comprehensive analysis</a> from the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information found that existing controls are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.<br /><br />Last spring the Washington, D.C., chapter of SPJ <a href="https://profficecensorship.blogspot.com/search?q=Walensky">wrote to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky</a>, saying the “restrictions on staff speaking to reporters without notifying authorities amount to a human rights abuse, withholding critical perspective from the public and from health professionals.”<br /><br />Walensky responded, “CDC scientists and researchers communicate with members of the press about their work. However, CDC experts are working scientists and are not always available for interviews. Our press officers serve as points of contact for news media to provide relevant background information and to ensure questions are answered in a timely manner.”<br /><br />With reporters’ access pretty well controlled through that choke point, leaders can also make briefings few and far between, without fear reporters will get around them.<br /><br />Journalists get stories, of course. Sometimes we take what officials hand to us or interviews they allow under monitors. Sometimes we fill an article out with comments from outside sources. Sometimes insiders defy the rules and talk to us without reporting to the authorities.<br /><br />However, with up to several thousand people in an institution prohibited to speak, or prohibited to speak without minders, it’s impossible that we know enough about issues critical to the public.<br /><br />Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html">reported</a> that CDC was not releasing all the data it has on COVID. Perhaps reporters should have been in the buildings getting to know staff people, chatting with them normally.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the controls have become somewhat of a societal norm. Many government entities on the federal, state and local level, businesses and nonprofit organizations put the no-talking-to-the-press rules on employees.<br /><br />There are many reasons these controls have happened, including reporters rushing to get a story; journalists believing what they get is the story, rather than a limited piece of the overall context; and officials legitimately fearing something will blow up on them, sometimes before they know about it themselves.<br /><br />However, there is also a great deal of manipulation of information to serve political or other purposes.<br />As Russia is so profusely illustrating for us, information control by people in power is not just wrong, it’s one of the most corrosive and deadly forces in human existence.<br /><br />In January, the Office of Science and Technology Policy published the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22-Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.pdf">scientific integrity report</a> for the Biden administration, which basically endorsed press control policies as they have existed for years.<br /><br />Freedom of information officers from SPJ and SEJ <a href="https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1858">wrote to the OSTP</a>, saying the gatekeeping process “has slowed and effectively constricted the flow of information to journalists. The public is instead often fed a steady diet of curated information and official ‘talking points’ designed to support the agency’s position.”<br /><br />Seven months after the original letter, and with the exception of acknowledgement emails, OSTP has not answered any of the groups’ correspondence<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">.</span></span></p>Kathryn Foxhallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02858886101595215047noreply@blogger.com0