In-Depth Legal Review Says Agency Controls on Reporters Are Illegal

An in-depth review of legal cases concludes that the prohibitions many government agencies have against employees speaking to reporters without permission are illegal.

The article in the Kansas Law Review also says journalists themselves should be able to bring suit to stop the gag orders, rather than waiting for an agency employee to do it.

Both the Society of Professional Journalists and the D.C. Chapter of the SPJ hailed the analysis as a breakthrough in the fight against this severe censorship that has been intensifying for over a quarter of a century.

The 70-page review analyzes dozens of Supreme Court and other legal cases. It says the “overbroad” restraints are unenforceable constitutionally, “yet still proliferate and still exert a powerful influence on the way employees behave.”

The article, by Frank LoMonte, head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, is a broader discussion of the information that appeared in the Brechner Center Issue Brief released in October.

Patricia Gallagher Newberry, Society of Professional Journalists national president, said, “Censorship has stalked a horrific path through history. This is another instance. It is heartening to find another way to fight this trend toward silencing public employees, which SPJ has identified as a grave risk to public welfare.”

SPJ’s most recent resolution on the matter, approved at its annual meeting in September, states, “Journalists’ obligation to do all they can to seek the full truth includes fighting against barriers to understanding the full truth and reporting those barriers to the public.”

I urge all journalists, including editors and publishers, to read the Brechner Review. It not only gives the press a path for fighting these restrictions through the legal system. It empowers us right now to stand up to myriad agencies on all levels and say, “Yeah! This is censorship. This is unconstitutional.”

Science Writers "Dismayed" at Committee Stripping Free Speech Provision from Bill

On November 15 the National Association of Science Writers told the U.S. Congress that, “many, if not most, agencies now require their scientists to get approval before speaking to reporters,” and in many instances agencies prohibit them from talking to reporters at all.

NASW said it was dismayed that language that would have given scientists’ the right to speak to the press was stripped out of the Scientific Integrity Act bill on October 17 in the mark-up by House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

The NASW letter comes after a letter from 28 journalism and other groups went to Congress with much the same message on November 7.

NASW, which has both journalists and public information officers among its members, said, “Federal agencies’ policies and practices that block the dissemination of scientific information are at odds with widely recognized norms of journalism.”

The association noted that the U.S. government employs one of the most powerful and accomplished scientific work forces in history, with tens of thousands of publicly funded scientists working in more than 20 agencies.

27 Groups Call on Congress to End the Censorship on Federal Employees

Twenty-seven journalism and free speech groups sent a letter to each member of Congress on November 6 calling for the right of unimpeded communication with journalists for all federal employees.

The letter noted, “Over the last 25 years there has been a relatively rapid trend toward federal agencies and others prohibiting staff members from communicating to journalists without reporting to some authority, often public information officers.”

These restrictions, the letter said, “have become an effective form of censorship by which powerful entities keep the American people ignorant about what impacts them.

It pointed to the fact that a bill (H.R. 1709) introduced in the House of Representatives this spring would have given federal scientists, only, a small degree of protection to speak to the press. However, even that was stripped out during the October 17 mark-up in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

The letter said, “We call on Congress to hold hearings on these free speech issues and to work with the Executive Branch to complete a thorough examination on why free speech has become so undermined for millions of people that legislation is needed to allow free speech without reporting to authorities, and on what those restrictions do to the nation’s functioning.”

Led by the Society of Professional Journalists, the letter was also signed by the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Association of Health Care Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists, Open the Government, and others.

Committee Kills Provisions to Allow Federal Scientists to Talk to Reporters without Prior Approval

Earlier this year Paul Tonko (D-NY) introduced the Scientific Integrity Act (H.R. 1709) which, among other things, would have given federal scientists the right to speak to reporters without prior approval from their agencies. A companion bill was introduced by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI).

One might argue that provision would have done more harm to free speech than good: it would have helped entrench the idea that people have the right to speak only under special circumstances, like having a science degree. It would also have allowed agencies to require the scientists to report the subject of press interview. Having to report an interview, of course, means being prohibited from ever speaking in confidence with a reporter, routinely depriving the public of much information about what is really happening.

Nevertheless, introduction of the provision could be seen as an important step to raise the idea in Congress that silencing many thousand federal employees in terms of talking to reporters—the effect of the current heavy oversight and permission rules—might not be a good thing. However, the provision apparently offered far too much openness, and it was killed in a mark-up session on October 17 in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. 

Congressman Tonko asked the committee to consider instead a new version of the bill that eliminated the right of scientists to speak to reporters without first getting permission. It would have, instead, allowed scientists to, “respond to media interview requests regarding scientific or technical findings from research conducted by, or research related to that conducted by the individual, while ensuring full compliance with limits on disclosure of classified information.”

The bill would have also allowed the scientists to present opinions beyond the scope of their research findings, if they presented them as personal opinions and not statements on behalf of the agency.

It also would have required agencies to have clear guidelines for how scientists could respond to media requests that would, “not delay or impede without scientific merit the communication of scientific or technical findings to the media.”

Even that version was too much.

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the ranking member of the committee, offered an amendment to delete those provisions on media requests, citing concern that the legislation would dictate “how federal scientists and agencies handle media requests.” Saying many agencies already have media procedures in place as part of their scientific integrity policies, he said, “Every administration deserves the opportunity to shape policy and message. That's why we hold elections.”

Lucas continued, “The job of scientists is to conduct research and the job of policymakers is to develop policy which is a complicated process that involves weighing many factors including science. Science should also help inform policy not be policy.”

As apparently had been agreed upon before the mark-up session, Rep. Tonko said he accepted the amendment for the sake of the overall bill.

The Committee passed that version the bill 25-6.

The legislation would also require all covered agencies to adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy that will be approved by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Those policies would do things like prohibit scientists from engaging in misconduct and prohibit suppression or delaying of scientific findings without scientific merit.

It would allow federal scientists to participate in scientific conferences, sit on scientific advisory or governing boards, contribute to the academic peer-review process. Each covered agency would be required to have a scientific integrity officer, an administrative process and dispute resolution process. 

Video of the markup session in on the committee website, with the discussion of H.R. 1709 beginning at about minutes 39.

Science Magazine and EOS reported on the markup.

Maybe A Breakthrough: Brechner Center Says PIO Constraints Have Never Survived Constitutional Challenge

A new, maybe landmark, report from the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, asserts, “Although rules and policies requiring government employees to get approval before speaking to the news media are widely enforced, no such policy as ever survived a constitutional challenge.”

Frank LoMonte, Director of the Center, has worked closely with the Society of Professional Journalists and others in bringing to the fore the issue of mandated clearance or “Censorship by PIO.”

Some government agencies cite the 2006 Supreme Court case Garcetti v. Ceballos as authority to prohibit employees from speaking to journalists without going through the public information officers.

However, the new report says that case is about “when an employee speaks as part of a work assignment, that speech belongs to the employer, and the employee has no First Amendment claim if punished for performing the assignment in a way the employer finds unsatisfactory.”

The Brechner Center argues, “The government faces a much more demanding burden to justify a blanket restraint on speaking to the press than to justify punishing one particular speaker whose speech undermines the agency’s effectiveness.”

The center reviewed state and federal caselaw back to the 1940s and found nearly two dozen cases, “in which a court has struck down a blanket policy requiring public employees to get approval before speaking about their work.”

The report quotes one judge in the 1970s as saying, “The protected right to publish the news would be of little value in the absence of sources from which to obtain it.”

Some things that government public relations offices can legally do include coaching employees about giving interviews and issuing statements from the agency’s perspective, says the report. However, it concludes, “What they cannot do is compel either employees or journalists to clear every conversation in advance.”

“Censored 2020” Includes Essay on “Censorship by PIO”

I am happy to say the annual book, “Censored 2020,” is out and contains my essay on “Censorship by PIO.”


After expounding on terrifying stuff in federal agencies, like Smallpox virus that sat around for decades waiting to be sold to terrorists or whatever, I say:

 “We, the press, just weren’t there. By turning a blind eye to those closed doors and gagged people, we turn a blind eye to horrific situations.”

The essay recounts agencies not allowing contact with such small fry publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
 
The book is published by Seven Stories Press.

Massive Failure by FDA, Massive Failure by the Press

Katherine Eban is testifying before Congress and elsewhere about her book, “Bottle of Lies,” which paints a stunning, deeply researched picture of FDA being unable to ensure the safe manufacture of most drugs we take.

As a New York Times preview summarized it: “The fake quality-control data, bird infestations and toxic impurities at the overseas plants that could be making your medication.”

Among other horrors, Eban explains that sloppy manufacturing is one thing that can lead to substandard antibiotics that could contribute to microbes’ resistance to the drugs used to control them. Researchers fear such resistance will kill millions of people in the future.

“Eighty percent of active ingredients for both our brand and generic drugs come from abroad, the majority from India and China. America makes almost none of its own antibiotics anymore,” Eban said in the New York Times piece.

The book took Eban 10 years to write, while people most certainly died due to poor drug quality. During those years reporters usually were not able to talk to people in FDA or not able to talk to them without censors, because FDA prohibited that many years ago. It’s been over two decades since the agency kicked reporters out of its building.

That kind of contact is at the heart of reporting. It’s no wonder we did not know what was happening and it took a top investigative reporter a decade to do what might have taken less than half a year, if people weren’t silenced. Indeed, reporters might have been regularly covered this story indepth.

The book is critical journalism that reveals massive, long-term failures in journalism. Reporters are happily unaware of dangerous agency failure. We publish stories mostly from FDA releases, briefings, public meetings or other highly controlled information, knowing all the while the approximately16,000 staff are officially silenced and usually actually silenced. However, we make money. FDA looks good.

Here in the U.S. is a book which according to official FDA rules is banned information flow, since it exists because someone did defy the rules to provide information to a journalist.

Of course, as Society of Professional Journalists’ surveys show, such rules for silencing employees are now widespread across the country. They are a cultural norm, a system for burning books and other information before they exist.

SPJ Calls Constraints on People Talking to Reporters "Authoritarian"

The constraints that have grown up to stop journalists from speaking to people without notifying authorities are authoritarian, states a resolution passed by the Society of Professional Journalists September 7 (below or on the website).

The statement says journalists have a responsibility to fight the constraints.

“Journalists’ obligation to do all they can to seek the full truth includes fighting against barriers to understanding the full truth and reporting those barriers to the public,” says the statement passed by official delegates at the society’s meeting in San Antonio, Texas.

(Full disclosure: I drafted the resolution. It was sponsored by the SPJ Freedom of Information Committee.)

In the last 20-30 years there has been a surge of employers and others prohibiting people to communicate with journalists without going through public information officers or other authorities. In, reality, journalists often are never allowed to speak to the people they request.

Information on the issue, including the seven surveys SPJ has sponsored, is on the society’s website about it: https://www.spj.org/pios.asp.

The new resolution says, “The public has a right to be dubious about information coming from public or private organizations where employees are silenced in terms of communicating to the press or where they cannot speak without guards.”

It calls for currently proposed legislation in Congress to ensure that all federal employees—not just scientists—be able to communicate with the press without reporting contacts to anyone.

In a 2017 resolution, the society said these practices are censorship and a grave risk to public welfare: https://www.spj.org/res2017.asp#2

Resolution No. 2

Allowing Federal Employees to Freely Talk with the Press
Submitted by: SPJ Freedom of Information Committee
Delegate Action: Approved

WHEREAS the ability of people to speak to each other normally, without being pressured to report conversations to the authorities or to anyone, is essential to public welfare and democracy;

WHEREAS the Society of Professional Journalists has carefully studied and repeatedly decried the cultural norm that has grown up in many arenas of prohibiting employees and others from communicating with journalists without going through or reporting to a public information officer or other authority;

WHEREAS the prohibitions against communicating with journalists and the pressures to report contacts are authoritarian and prevent source people from explaining many things that are the public’s business and certainly interlace with other current pressures on speech to weaken society and create extraordinarily dangerous situations;

WHEREAS in a democracy, it is more appropriate for the public and the press to have oversight over the communications of people in power rather than the reverse;

WHEREAS proposed compromises that would allow reporters to communicate with whom they wish, but would still force employees or others to report contacts are dangerously intimidating to communication;

WHEREAS proposed compromises that would allow people in power to mandate reporting of contacts after they occur are also dangerously intimidating to communication;

WHEREAS such compromises are insidious because they often empower journalists to gather some information while being unaware of how much the source people speaking under this censorship will not mention;

WHEREAS in spite of journalistic skills, triumphs, prowess, breakthroughs and impressive stories and in spite of the fact some sources do leak, journalists cannot know what they miss when people are under pressure to not communicate or pressure to report contacts with journalists;

WHEREAS journalists’ obligation to do all they can to seek the full truth includes fighting against barriers to understanding the full truth and reporting those barriers to the public;

WHEREAS the public has a right to be dubious about information coming from public or private organizations where employees are silenced in terms of communicating to the press or where they cannot speak without guards;

WHEREAS the SPJ stresses to people in public and private leadership that these restrictions routinely hide information from the leaders themselves; from the professionals and others who focus on the subjects being discussed; and from the rest of the public; and

WHEREAS Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) have introduced into Congress the Scientific Integrity Act (H.R. 1709 and S. 775) which has the intent of allowing federal scientists to speak to the media as well as publish scientific findings, participate in scientific organizations and communicate in other ways;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED the Society of Professional Journalists, meeting in convention on September 7, 2019 in San Antonio, Texas calls on Rep. Tonko, Sen. Schatz and others in Congress to ensure any such legislation supports the right of unimpeded communication with journalists for all federal employees and not just for scientists;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that any such legislation ensure that all federal employees have the right to communicate with the press without reporting contacts with the authorities or anyone, before or after the contacts; and that reporters making requests to an agency be able to speak to the requested persons and not be confined to spokespersons.

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that SPJ calls on Congress and the Executive Branch to complete a thorough examination on why free speech has become so undermined for millions of people that legislation is needed to allow free speech, without reporting to authorities and on what those restrictions do to the nation’s functioning.

LET IT BE FINALLY RESOLVED that SPJ calls on people in leadership in all arenas, including sports, education, police operations, state and local government, science and others, to work to eliminate these restrictions, because they create ignorance in all of us and induce corrosion that impacts everyone.

Cohen Enters into Hearing Record SPJ Resolution Opposing Mandated Clearance of Reporters

The Society of Professional Journalists’ 2017 resolution calling mandated clearance restrictions on journalists a “grave risk to public welfare,” was entered into the record of a Congressional hearing on proposed Scientific Integrity legislation, July 17.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) requested the SPJ statement be entered during the hearing on the legislation, which would seek to ensure that federal scientists are free to communicate by such means as publishing, attending conferences, being part of professional groups, and responding to media requests for interviews without prior approval.

The SPJ resolution, on the other hand, cites its concerns regarding, “the harm done by restrictions on access, including mandates that reporters always go through PIOs.” It does not limit the concerns by the status of the person the reporter wants to talk to.

Cohen is also chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Justice.

The Scientific Integrity bill is sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and it is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

As I noted earlier this year, the mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the mandated clearance censorship (“Censorship by PIO”) because it includes the provision against prior approval for contacts with journalists. It’s the first time I know of there have been statements in Congress indicating any of the restrictions on reporters talking to people are deleterious. Currently there are heavy prohibitions in many agencies against employees speaking without permission and oversight.

Rep. Tonko and Sen. Schatz, wrote in an opinion piece on the bill in USA Today, “Information is power, and we don’t believe public science should be controlled solely by the political powerful.”

Colleges and Universities: Teaching The Censorship by Doing It

On some campuses, says a Student Press Law Center article, a “shifting power dynamic has allowed college PR offices to deceptively spin stories, masquerade as news, deny student reporters access to sources, and infringe on student media’s editorial independence.”

The author, Samuel Breslow, brought the 2018 article to my attention after a discussion on “Censorship by PIO,” at a recent Society of Professional Journalists D.C. chapter event.

Looking at incidents over past years, the piece says many schools have taken to routing interview requests for staff through the PR office, with the PR officials sometimes sitting in on and recording interviews by student reporters.

The article, which looks at incidents and reporting from several schools, says, “Sometimes universities try to prevent interviews from taking place at all.”

Journalists Consider Breaking Their Silence About the Obstruction

On May 20, the Columbia Journalism Review published one of the best articles yet on the phenomenon of “mandated clearance.” That refers to agencies, offices and others forcing reporters’ conversations to be overseen--and often blocked--by some authority, often a public information officer. 

Minneapolis journalist Cinnamon Janzer brought her own frustrations to the article and interviewed several SPJ people (including myself) and other journalists.

The conclusion, as stated by former SPJ president Carolyn Carson, is, “When the government is obstructing your ability to get those answers, the public needs to know exactly what they’re doing….”

Maybe journalists are coming to understand that. Coincidently, on the same day a post from the Association of Health Care Journalists said something similar. Felice Fryer, AHCJ Right to Know Chair, wrote about her newsroom at the Boston Globe. Editor Brian McGrory encouraged a reporter to do a column about state officials not answering questions, after widespread frustration in the newsroom and one PIO being amazingly obstructive.

Over the last 20-30 years there has been a surge in the trend of making public information officers into censors and information manipulators, at the behest of people in power. It’s a great shame on the PIO profession. It’s a greater shame on journalists that we have not told people about these blockages that impact them every day.

It’s critical to state, however, that journalists must not only fight for access in those instances they need to go through PIOs. It’s our ethical obligation to fight for the right to talk to anyone without any notification by anybody of any authority, including PIOs, before or after.

That’s just free speech. And without routine, fluid conversations, not overseen by anyone, confidential if need be, reporters will be dangerously unaware of many things.

Comments from the Area of the Closing Gates

These are things I have heard public information officers from federal science agencies say in the last year or so.

Silencing Dissidents

---A PIO said a reporter had asked for an interview with a particular person in the agency, but the agency probably would not allow it. One reason was that the source person might want to make a case for the worth of his particular program in the agency, for budget purposes.

Comment: Dear American public: Don’t ever, ever allow public officials to keep disgruntled staff opinions away from you. Those miffed folks have often been invaluable in telling us what is happening to us.

Blocking the “Wrong” Expert

---Another PIO said in a public meeting that in media interviews he allows the scientists to talk about science and the policy experts to talk about policy, but he doesn’t allow either to talk about the other area.

Comment: Can any of us imagine how much is silenced forever by people in power deciding who can speak about what? People with eyes and ears and a brain can’t tell us anything?

Congress shall make no law….

---Also, in a public meeting, a PIO said that in “media training” of agency experts she told them that yes, they have First Amendment rights, but they can still get in trouble within the agency for saying something.

Comment: When did agencies decide the public wanted them to ignore the First Amendment? How is it anything but irresponsible for the press and the public to trust a few people in an agency who use their power silence everyone else?

A Bill Actually Speaks Out Against the Censorship

New legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate could be important to the fight against federal agencies’ policies that prohibit employees and journalists from communicating with each other without notifying the authorities.

The Scientific Integrity Act (S. 775), aimed at ensuring that scientists and scientific research is not stifled, was introduced by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY).

Among other things the legislation says, “covered individuals” in federal agencies “may respond to media interview requests regarding their scientific or technical findings from research conducted by the individual without prior approval….”

The mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the censorship policies because it is a statement against mandated oversight by the authorities for contacts with journalists. It comes in an environment where heavy prohibitions against speaking without permission and oversight are the norm.

In the legislation “covered individuals” are employees or contractors who are engaged in, supervise or manage scientific activities; analyze or publicly communicate about those activities; or use the information in making policy, management or regulatory decisions.

The bill also says, however, that the agency may require the individual to report the subject of the interview.

Importantly, the bill also says those covered individuals may talk about personal opinions, including on matters of policy, only if they indicate they are presenting personal opinions.

The legislation is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

NASW Standards Call for Journalists to Have Direct Access to People in Federal Agencies

The National Association of Science Writers has released its Information Access Standards “to guide interactions between journalists and PIOs and sources at federal science agencies.”

Notably the standards say, “Journalists should have direct, unrestricted access to sources in the federal government.”

They also state, “PIOs and federal agencies should encourage direct and unfettered communication between journalists and scientists.”

The standards emerged from a one and half day summit held last October, participated in by both science journalists and PIOs. That was followed by a multi-step review and NASW board approval.

The process was guided in great part by Gabriel Popkin, a science journalist in the Washington, D.C., area and until recently head of the NASW. Popkin has said that there needs to be a push going forward to publicize and use the standards and to formally collect information on what is happening with access.

The standards make NASW one of the first journalists’ groups to, in essence, call for an end to the forced clearance through authorities of all contacts between journalists and employees.

In 2017 the Society of Professional Journalists called those policies censorship and a grave threat to public welfare.

(Full disclosure: I was involved in drafting both statements.)

The NASW standards further state, “Federal agencies should clearly inform scientists and other employees that they have a right to express their personal opinions, including to the media, without fear of retribution or punishment.”

That also is groundbreaking because many agencies have long said the reason people can’t speak, or that the agency must tell reporters who to talk to, is that source persons’ statements might not reflect the “coordinated” agency statement.

Considering Free Speech Rights for Government Staff From A Different Angle

So maybe the concept of the right to free speech for government employees is coming from another direction?

The Trump White House is forcing all kinds of staff people to sign nondisclosure agreements, says a Perspective piece in the Washington Post.

The NDAs are probably not enforceable but they might have a chilling effect, say Irvin McCollough and Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Office, a nonprofit that helps whistleblowers.

One “rider” on the annual appropriations legislation, “allows Congress to block executive branch ‘payment of the salary’ for any federal employee who attempts to prohibit or prevent another federal employee from communicating with Congress,” says the comment.

Interestingly, speaking to the news media or writing a book might be construed as protected under the provisions, say the authors.

This comes after the Trump campaign filed an arbitration claim against Cliff Sims, a former campaign and White House staffer, who wrote a book called, “Team of Vipers,” about the Trump White House. In a Washington Post column, Sims attorney Mark S. Zaid said, “If the president prevails, any winning candidate could forever silence — in advance — those who worked on their campaigns. Our democratic way of life should not tolerate political censorship.”

Brechner Center: Most private workplace rules against speaking to the press are legally questionable

The Brechner Center, headed by Frank LoMonte, has issued an important report on “Employees’ Right to Speak to the Media: Challenging Workplace Gag Policies.”

The center says most private workplace gag laws are legally questionable under the National Labor Relations Act.

This concerns private employment places only. (The Brechner Center has other ideas on challenging government workplaces gag orders.)

The report says, “Gagging employees from saying anything about their work to the news media is unnecessary, legally questionable, and contrary to the public’s interest in safe and honest workplaces.”

It also says, “Because the standards for initiating an NLRA case are quite informal, advocates for journalists’ rights should consider filing challenges to overbroad speech policies. Since the law against gagging employees is not widely publicized or understood, challenging overly restrictive policies can help send the message to all employers that their authority over their employees’ speech is limited.”

In November an NLRB judge issued an opinion that forced a hospital to rescind a gag rule on communicating to the press, supporting the Brechner Center report’s theory. (See below.)

NLRB Judge Forces Hospital to Rescind Gag Policy on Staff

An administrative law judge under the National Labor Relations Board ruled in November against a hospital that fired an employee for writing a letter to a newspaper. The Maine Coast Memorial Hospital had a media policy prohibiting employees from speaking to the press without permission.

Karen-Jo Young, who had been the hospital’s activities coordinator, wrote a letter to the Ellsworth American newspaper, about ongoing staffing concerns.

The Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas, stated in his decision, “The Board has repeatedly recognized the importance of employees’ communications to the media and other third parties as a means of publicizing labor disputes and drawing an employer’s attention to the need for improvements to working conditions.”

Young was not a member of either of the two bargaining units at the hospital.

The decision required the hospital to post a statement that said, among other things:

“We will not maintain or enforce any unlawful work rule or system policy that prohibits you from communicating with the news media about Maine Coast Memorial Hospital or Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems (EMHS) or that requires you to involve, or obtain permission from, Maine Coast Memorial Hospital or EMHS before doing so.”

Frank LoMonte of the Brechner Center for Freedom on Information is attempting to build a road map for challenging these restrictions in private workplaces.

CJR Article: Reporters Accepted PIO and Other Controls While Gymnasts Were Abused

A recent Columbia Journalism Review story looks at the controls on the press and the lack of media skepticism during the many years Larry Nassar abused young gymnasts.

It may be one of the best pieces to raise issues about what reporters enable—in many arenas of coverage—when they accept limitations put on them by people in power, including the mandates to go through public information offices for access.

According to the article by Alexandria Neason, a communications official for USA Gymnastics literally stood between a reporter and the athletes with outstretched arms when the journalist asked an unwelcome question.

Joan Ryan, a former sports columnist, who wrote a book about the toxic culture, is quoted as saying there was zero access to the athletes.

According to the article, “…for the most part, close examinations of training regimens were limited and curated.” And “officials sought to steer coverage toward the positive.”

The piece talks about warnings that reporters could lose their credentials and their fear of that.

Will Graves, an Associated Press sports writer, is quoted as saying, “We would ask questions but sort of in a polite way….”

The article reminds this journalist of polite questioning at many federal briefings. However, things we don’t know about federal agencies could have far wider impact.

New Journal to Focus on Access to People, Records, Meetings, etc.

The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information is announcing a new online, peer-reviewed Journal of Civic Information to focus on access to public employees and elected officials as well as access to public records and meetings, court transparency, open data and technology and related matters.

The center says, “Papers are welcomed from both scholars and practitioners, and we encourage submissions from a wide range of disciplines that involve managing information for public use.”

The Brechner Center is headed by Frank LoMonte, who says journalists and others tell him the biggest pain point for reporters is aggressive control of information through public information officers. The center is trying to draw a map for media lawyers who want to take on these cases.

In addition, researchers working on public information accessibility are encouraged to submit proposals for presentation at the National Freedom of Information Coalition summit, April 12-13 in Dallas.

The top three papers will earn cash prizes and the best paper will be guaranteed publication in the new journal, according to the center.

One-page proposals must be emailed by January 21 to Dr. David Cuillier, University of Arizona School of Journalism, cuillier@email.arizona.edu.

LA Chapter of SPJ Plans Panel on PIO Restrictions, Etc.

The Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists will host a discussion on issues relating to public information officers and journalists on January 22.

The chapter cites the series of studies from SPJ National that found there is increasing difficulty to access information and do interviews through PIOs.

The discussion will focus on “the studies, including how to find ways to improve relationships between the holders of public information and the journalists who are seeking it out.”

Panelists will be the public information officers from the LA County Sheriff’s Department, the LA Department of Public Works, the City of Pasadena, and the City of Anaheim.

When: Tuesday, January 22, 2019, 7 to 8:30 p.m.

Where: The Association lounge, 110 East 6th Street, downtown Los Angeles.

Cost: Free and open to the public

Contact: Sarah Favot, sarah.favot@gmail.com

RSVP: spjlosangeles@gmail.com

Washington Post Publishes Opinion Piece on The Harm to the Public

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, science writer Gabriel Popkin says, “Over the past few decades, one federal agency after another has thrown up barriers limiting the media’s access to researchers.”

His very good piece gives numerous illustrations on how the restrictions work. It’s one of the few in the major media on the mandated clearance of reporters’ requests to communicate with people and the related obstructions.

Popkin says, “This harms the public — and democracy itself. When agencies refuse access to experts who can explain how scientific knowledge is produced and how science-based decisions are made, understanding of and trust in government suffer.”

The author has worked with the National Association of Science Writers on the blockage issue.

He says, in one example, that a Food and Drug Administration public affairs officer would not put him in contact with an expert on the evaluation of genetically modified plants.

That’s a pervasive story: federal agencies first began prohibiting staff to speak to reporters unless the journalists go through public information offices. Now PIOs often don’t let the reporter through.

With these ethically plagued restrictions one question is whether the public may be better off if the reporter isn’t allowed to speak to the person requested. If the communication does happen it will be controlled by the agency’s eagle-eyed oversight. It’s a good bet that so much will go unmentioned the result can be technically accurate and badly misleading. Neither the journalist nor the public will likely understand how the narrative has been befuddled.