SPJ DC Chapter Says Press Restrictions Exacerbated Current Problems

The restrictions on talking to the press have been instrumental in getting the nation into its current straits with the COVID-19 pandemic, a Washington journalists group told three senators today.

The D.C. ProChapter of the Society of Professional Journalists asked that examination of controls on the press through media relations be part that the requested inquiry on political interference in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Senator Patty Murray and Senator Gary Peters have asked the Government Accountability Office to examine the possible undue political influence by the Trump Administration on communication and integrity at those agencies.

The D.C. Pro Chapter is part of the Society of Professional Journalists, the largest broad-based organization of journalists in the United States.

SPJ has called these restrictions censorship and authoritarian. The organization recently said these blockages have led to government dysfunction and a significantly higher COVID-19 death toll.

The chapter particularly emphasized that an extensive analysis by First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte says that the controls are unconstitutional. It also says many courts have said that they are.

It also pointed to documents the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University obtained which show, among other things, CDC indicated to staff it was not particularly important to allow reporters to talk to anyone.  

The complete letter with resources on the issue is here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCvxo3xwNBFL8bZbA3SQgUTwqgk2y0FrWI-iRjIljR4/edit?usp=sharing

NYT Reporter on the Current Controls at CDC: Sad and Scary

At a session at the September Society of Professional Journalists’ meeting, long-time New York Times science reporter Donald G. McNeil, Jr. said:

“I have never seen the CDC so paralyzed in 20 years of covering them. And it is sad and scary.

“Even under the Obama Administration they had to clear anything important through HHS. But now, I mean, I have never seen it like this, where they don’t hold a press conference in order to announce a major change they are making in guidelines. They sort of slip it onto the website without telling anybody. And it comes to our attention on the quiet.

“And then when we ask for an explanation of: ‘Why are you using .60 infection fatality rate or why did you change the guideline about who should be tested, they don’t want to answer the questions. So if you don’t talk to people off the record, you don’t talk to anyone because nobody is being allowed to say anything on the record unless it has be cleared through [Health and Human Services Secretary] Alex Azar’s office, if you are talking basically about HHS or CDC. Or through the White House. So, it is a horrible experience for a journalist trying to get life -saving information out of your own government.”

From KF: The question I have is why we, journalists, allowed ourselves to be put in the situation where we got only controlled conversations--in the Obama administration and before? Why did we not oppose the restraints or warn the public? 

Indeed, why wouldn't an institution that controlled public scrutiny of itself become a danger to the public? Why wouldn't what we don't know because the omnipresent PIOs be hazardous?

Journalists and All the Stories Not Told

Many reporters work hard and are highly skilled. Statements from a number of them leave a picture of journalists working until they can open some doors and shine light on important stuff. However, they often don't talk about the doors that remain closed. These are doors are locked by people in power using controls such as bans on staff speaking to reporters without the oversight by authorities, often PIOs.

Why aren't we talking about the doors that are still locked?

Below are some locked doors stories.

Scoop on a Hidden Database, But Never Permission To Talk to Staff People

Christina Jewett is winning awards for her extraordinary 2019 Kaiser Health News series that found the Food and Drug Administration had “let medical device companies file reports of injuries and malfunctions outside a widely scrutinized public database, which leave doctors and medical sleuths in the dark.”

The hidden alternative database had been in place nearly 20 years.
It took Jewett six months to do the story. During that time she worked with an agency PIO and she was never allowed to speak to a subject matter expert.

She got the story through Freedom of Information requests for documents and talking to outside experts, including a former FDA employee.

She said if she had been allowed to talk to insider experts the reporting would have been a much simpler or quicker process. But the agency makes experts available, she said, if it’s going to get flattering coverage.

Employees, Jewett said, are reminded not to speak to reporters without telling the journalists to go through the press office. And reporters sort of know, she said, that it’s frowned upon if a reporter tries to get in touch with an employee first.

NYT Reporter Said She Had Rarely Talked To EPA Career Employees for 10 years

Coral Davenport is a key reporter for the New York Times on the Environmental Protection Agency.

At a 2017 meeting at the National Press Club, she said, “In the past 10 years I have had almost zero access to career staff at EPA. Usually the way I find things out or get leaks is people who have recently left. People outside of EPA with close connections. They’ll talk to folks inside EPA.

“People in EPA have typically been absolutely petrified of speaking to the press. They will speak to someone one degree out or recently left.”

FDA and Off-Label Medications

For a 2018 story on off-label use of medications, a Washington Post reporter said FDA never allowed the journalists on the story to speak to anyone in the agency, despite repeated requests.

Ten Years to Nail Down FDA Failure

Katherine Eban’s 2019 book “Bottle of Lies,” a jaw-dropping look at failure in the FDA on generic drugs, is on several best books lists. When my editorial came out in Medpage talking about the “PIO Censorship,” Eban tweeted that muzzling of government scientists was the reason it took 10 years to write the book.

Unborn FDA Newsletters

Jim Dickinson has had a newsletter company, which includes FDA Webview, focusing on that agency for several decades. He says, “I couldn’t have started my company under the limits now in place -- I'd have had nothing to sell but what everyone else already had in a glutted marketplace: approved FDA info.”

Brechner Center: It's Illegal, But State Universities Gag Athletes

It’s illegal for public universities to gag athletes from speaking to the media and yet that is frequently what they do, says a new report from Brechner Center for Freedom of Information.

In a summary on the Poynter website, the authors say, “Yet for athletes at many of the nation’s top athletic programs, talking to the news media is regarded as a punishable offense. Players caught giving interviews without their athletic department’s approval — about any topic, even one unrelated to sports — can be punished with sanctions including withdrawal of their scholarships, ending their college careers.”

The project found that 86 percent of rulebooks from 58 state universities that compete in the NCAA’s elite Division I forbade athletes from speaking to journalists without permission.

The article lays out the arguments as to why these restrictions are illegal.

It also says, “When athletes’ interactions with the press and public are filtered through university image-minders, wrongdoing will go undetected and multiply.”

Although it’s not discussed in the Poynter article, the same can be said of Congress, federal, state and local agencies, schools, police departments and the many other types of institutions that have instituted these controls.

SPJ Chapter to Academies' Presidents: Scientists, Others Should Be Allowed to Speak to Reporters

 The SPJ Washington, D.C., Chapter sent this letter today to the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine asking for scientists and others be allowed to speak to journalists without interference.

Dr. McNutt and Dr. Dzau,

Thank for your important statement yesterday against the distortion and miscommunication of scientific evidence and your call for transparency to ensure public trust.

The SPJ Washington, D.C., Chapter is part of the Society of Professional Journalists, the largest general organization of journalists in the nation.

SPJ-DC calls on the NAS leaders to go even further and to ask that government scientists and others be allowed to speak with the media to get the word out, rather than being silenced so that any administration can put out its own version of “science.”



As the Society said in a resolution passed by its delegates just this month, SPJ has for many years decried, “the controls on speech that pressure people not to speak to journalists without notifying the authorities, often through public information officers.”

The Society has called the restrictions censorship and authoritarian.

For some time prior to this administration any contact between a reporter and an employee of the federal public health agencies must be approved by authorities, often up through two to four levels.

These controls pull a veil over the communication process and are used to deliberately block or limit information according to the thoughts or inclinations of people in power.

Under any presidential administration, the distortion and miscommunication we don’t know about could be far more dangerous than those that become public.

Please note recent documents from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that show officials telling media relations staff that 1) a particular news outlet should not be allowed an interview because President Trump did not like them and 2) it was not necessary to allow any specific news outlets to speak to employees.

Also note the extensive legal analysis by Frank LoMonte, Director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, that finds such controls on speech are unconstitutional and many courts have said so.

....


We would appreciate talking to you about this matter.

Kathryn Foxhall

Board Member, SPJ Washington, D.C., Chapter

CC: Matthew Hall

President, Society of Professional Journalists

 

SPJ: Agencies’ Control on Speech May Have Led to Higher COVID-19 Death Toll

The Society of Professional Journalists said in a resolution passed Saturday that it believes the controls on employee speech by government agencies has led to severe limitations on public scrutiny of those entities and to a higher COVID-19 death toll.

SPJ cited the blockage and delays of reporters by the Department of Health and Human Services as particularly tragic, noting also the censorship in its daughter agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

For many years a number of agencies have banned employees from ever speaking to reporters without notifying authorities, often through the agency public information offices.

The forced oversight leads to intimidation of source people within agencies. Beyond that, excessive delays and total blockages often prevent reporters from speaking to people at all.

In another session at the SPJ meeting, Donald G. McNeil, Jr., prominent New York Times health reporter, decried the current situation in CDC and HHS, saying, “It’s a horrible experience for a journalist trying to get life-saving information out of your own government.”

SPJ has led several coalition efforts opposing these controls over six years.

The Society’s 83 delegates passed the resolution Saturday night at its two-day virtual annual meeting. The statement passed in a bundle of 12 resolutions, all so noncontroversial among the delegates that separate consideration was not necessary. One other resolution accepted a new policy on the kind of entities to allow as sponsors for its meetings.

The full resolution on speech controls is below.

 

Resolution 10: A Resolution Opposing Restrictions on Speech that Could Worsen a Pandemic
Submitted by: Kathryn Foxhall, Member, Freedom of Information Committee
Cosponsors: SPJ Freedom of Information Committee; Randy Showstack, president, Washington, D.C., SPJ Pro Chapter

Resolutions Committee Recommendation: Positive

WHEREAS the Society of Professional Journalists has long spoken out against controls on speech that pressure people not to speak to journalists without notifying authorities, often through public information officers;

WHEREAS SPJ has called the restrictions censorship and authoritarian;

WHEREAS the COVID-19 pandemic has now killed nearly 200,000 people in the United States and no one knows when there be relief;

WHEREAS the Society believes the secrecy caused by these controls on speech has led to agencies severely limiting public scrutiny of themselves; to inevitable incidents of government disfunction; and therefore, to a significantly higher death toll from COVID-19 than would otherwise happened;

WHEREAS the Society decries in particular the tragedy that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has employed this oversight, delay and blockage of reporters for many years, including in its daughter agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health;

WHEREAS the Society further notes evidence that HHS and its agencies continue to entrench these controls, for example with:

---instructions from the current Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs that all press releases and press inquiries for the 80,000-person department go through the ASPA office;

--- a CDC memo telling staff who deal with reporters asking to talk to someone: “Just because there are outstanding requests or folks keep getting asked to do a particular interview does not mean it has to be fulfilled.”

WHEREAS these controls in effect silence or inhibit the great majority of people in HHS who have something important to say about the pandemic;

WHEREAS there have been many other incidents of blockage and controls on journalism before and during the pandemic in many agencies and parts of the nation;

WHEREAS the continuation of this censorship will also exacerbate future crises; and

WHEREAS the Society has congratulated Brechner Center for Freedom of Information Director Frank LoMonte on his extensive legal analysis that finds such controls on speech are unconstitutional and many courts have said so;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Society of Professional Journalists, meeting in convention virtually on September 12¸2020, calls on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to explain why controls on the speech of its employees are safer for the public than is free speech and why that department has the right to decide this under the U.S Constitution.

 

 

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Legal Perspective

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

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

Extreme Danger of Controlled Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Some Insights on Where We Are with HHS Information Control

In May, the new Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services said all press inquiries and material released to the press must go through his office. About a month before that a CDC communications official had told staff who deal with the press they do not necessarily have to “fulfill” reporters’ requests to talk to someone.

Years ago, federal agencies, like many other entities, instituted rules banning employees from speaking to the press without being overseen by authorities, often through public information offices. That, in effect, prohibited employees from saying, and the public from hearing, anything the leaders did not approve.

But it also created a choke point through which conversations, even such censor-managed conversations, are controlled or blocked entirely.

The Knight First Amendment Institute brought a Freedom of Information lawsuit in April seeking documents on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s employees’ speech policies . They received 113 documents, all posted on the Institute’s reading room.

Below are summaries of a few of interest.

A longer version of this article is here.

(1)

From May 22, 2020

New Public Affairs Secretary Says All HHS Media Inquiries, Etc., Must Go Through His Office

On May 22, 2020, Michael Caputo, new HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs sent an email to apparently all HHS agencies, saying, “Beginning Tuesday, May 26 all HHS operating and staff division media inquiries and press materials (e.g. news releases, talking points, etc.) must be passed solely to ASPA for clearance. There is no longer a need to submit your incoming press opportunities or press materials anywhere else. ASPA is committed to clearing these quickly.”

Whether this is better or worse for reporters getting to talk to someone is hard to say. From what we know in times past agencies had to get clearance for a reporter to speak to someone up through three to four levels, ending with the ASPA office.

The new rule does seem to illustrate, however, the unlikelihood of reporters and staff speaking to each other. There are about 100 people in the ASPA office. I suspect there are far fewer who will belooking at reporters’ requests for interviews.

There are about 80,000 HHS employees. That includes all of FDA, CDC, CMS, the National Center for Health Statistics, the 28 centers at NIH, etc.

I emailed Mr. Caputo, saying that sending all inquiries through one office would seem to be a constrained situation.

He emailed: “There are hundreds of communicators working at HHS. Don’t worry, we got this. Best wishes.” 

000000000000

(2)

From April 30, 2020

Don’t Necessarily Let Reporters Talk to Anyone

In an email Michawn Rich, special assistant to the CDC director, told staff who handle the pleas of reporters to talk to someone at CDC, “Just because there are outstanding requests or folks keep getting asked to do a particular interview does not mean it has to be fulfilled.”

She also said, “Every interview MUST be audio recorded.”

Also, she said, “You need to approve all interview requests (print, tv, radio, podcast) BEFORE they go to HHS or OVP [Office of Vice President?] for approval.” HHS means Health and Human Services headquarters office.

And, as covered in the news in June, Rich said, “As a rule, do not send up requests for Greta Van Susteren or anyone affiliated with Voice of America….” That was basically because President Trump did not like them.

The email also directs:

“NOTE: The new HHS comms leadership wants to focus on local media. Send any good local media stories to Brad Traverse.”

“All press materials (releases, statements, etc.,) need to be submitted to releases@hhs.gov for clearance.”

“All media inquiries (requests for interviews, written responses to reporter questions, etc.)  need to be submitted interviews@hhs.gov....

“HHS will triage the submissions to determine which ones require [redacted].”

Politico reported on March 26 that Rich had been detailed to CDC to help with coronavirus communication and she had previously been communications director for USDA for about a year.

 000000000000

(3)

From March 16, 2020

So How Many People Does It Take to Let a Reporter Speak to Somebody?

An email to the entire National Center for Infectious and Respiratory Diseases at CDC said, “We are aware of heightened interest and activity surrounding COVID-19,” indicating all related inquiries should go to the CDC News Media Branch.

“The News Media Branch will coordinate with the COVID-19 response to determine how inquiries should be addressed,” said the email, sent on behalf of Sam Posner, Associate Director of NCIRD.

It says further, “For routine news media inquiries, please be sure to follow CDC news media policy. Typically, that involves contacting your Health Communication Lead or Office. They in turn coordinate with the Public Affairs staff within NCIRD HSCO [Health Science Communication Office] and the Office of the Associate Director for Communication, News Media Branch.”

000000000000

(4)

From January 9, 2020

The queries, the answers, the details

Ryan Murphy, HHS Acting Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, sent out a version of the ASPA Playbook to apparently all HHS divisions.

These are some outtakes.

“In addition to ASPA review, all op-eds required EOP [Executive Office of the President?] review. This involves a two-step process: 1) Submitting a concept for review and approval.

2) Upon approval of the concept, submitting the draft op-ed for review.

 “Concept review and approval: Submit a detailed concept for the proposed op-ed to your ASPA POC. The concept should include-

 “• The topic and summary of the content of the op-ed.

“• Why the message is relevant and how it fits into the overall communications strategy.

“• The proposed author of the op-ed.

“• Proposed target publication and target date for publication (if applicable) and any other information appropriate/valuable for reviewers.”

000000000000

(5)

From September 3, 2019

“Journalists Will Only Have Access to CDC Employees Who Agree to Be Interviewed.”

 (They just impact our health. They don’t have to answer questions.)

CDC released a new version of, “The CDC Media Relations Policy: Release of Information to the News Media”

Here are some outtakes:

“The NMB [News Media Branch] serves as the clearance and coordination liaison between CDC’s OD [Office of Director] and the HHS OASPA to provide articulate, knowledgeable spokespersons who can best serve the needs of CDC and the public in response to media requests for interviews. The NMB recommends that a media relations officer be present during interviews to witness and document the content of the interview, support the interviewee, and provide post-interview follow-up, as necessary. CDC employees are not required to speak to the media. Journalists will only have access to CDC employees who agree to be interviewed.”

 ***

“Individuals speaking in an unofficial capacity are not required to clear interviews or written material with the NMB or other CDC entity. Section 3.D. of this policy outlines additional employee limitations.”

***

CDC employees who provide their views as private citizens during media interviews must clearly state that the views they are expressing are their personal views and are not the views of CDC or HHS. They must ensure that media outlets do not identify them as a CDC or HHS representative. This also applies to employees who write letters-to-the-editor. Employees who author letters-to-the-editor must not use HHS or CDC letterhead or email addresses to express their personal views.

 “CDC employees who express their personal views are not subject to media relations clearance requirements. Expressions of personal or individual views to the media related to substance or outside activities are subject to the requirements set forth by the Office of Government Ethics’ Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. For example, CDC employees who present personal or individual views cannot make references to their official title or position in connection with outside activities (5 C.F.R. § 2635.807).”

 

000000000000

(6)

 From August 31, 2017

“Even for a simple data-related question…” layers of minders.

 Jeffrey Lancashire, National Center for Health Statistics acting Associate Director for Communication Science, sent an email to apparently all NCHS staff.

 “Important: ALL correspondence with media must now be cleared through Atlanta….”

 This meant that all press inquiries and press releases had to go through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters, which is in Atlanta. NCHS is in Hyattsville, Maryland.

 Below are some outtakes from his email:

 “Per Katherine Lyon Daniel, the CDC Associate Director for Communications, effective immediately and until further notice, any and all correspondence with any member of the news media, regardless of the nature of the inquiry, must be cleared through CDC’s Atlanta Communications office. This correspondence includes everything from formal interview requests to the most basic of data requests. This new procedure will be in effect for all of CDC.

 “For NCHS staff, this means that if you are directly contacted by a reporter by phone or email, even for a simple data-related question, the inquiry will have to be routed through Atlanta for clearance. Thus, please forward all of these inquiries directly to the Public Affairs Office email box at: paoquery@cdc.gov and we will route it through the clearance chain.”

 

 

Stop the Silencing of Police Officers

Society of Professional Journalists ̶ D.C. Chapter

Calls for an End to Restrictions on Officers’ Freedom to Talk to Reporters

The Washington, D.C., Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists has called on Congress to ensure that police reform measures include that police officers and others in law enforcement have the freedom to communicate to the press.

The group calls for an end to the prohibitions in some police departments against officers or other staff speaking to reporters or speaking to reporters without reporting to authorities, such as public information officers.

A 2016 survey sponsored by SPJ, the chapter’s parent organization, found that over 23% of police reporters have said that all or most of the time they have been prevented by a PIO from interviewing officers or investigators at all.

“Such blatant monitoring and repression of speech critically limits everyone’s understanding of institutions and will enable abuse. We make this special appeal to Congress to ensure such rules that silence police officers not be allowed to encumber reform,” says the letter.

The letter is below. It has been sent to the offices of:

Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chair, House Judiciary Committee

Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee

Senator Lindsey Graham, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader

Senator Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader

Chairman Jerry Nadler:

With Congress considering police reform measures, we urge you to take action to ensure that police reform includes the elimination of rules that silence police officers from speaking to the press.

The Washington, D.C., Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists wants to stress that any police reform must eliminate the prohibitions, common in many jurisdictions, on police officers ever speaking to reporters except under the oversight of authorities, often public information officers.

Police reform will be severely hampered or ineffective if it does not do away with the secrecy such controls create.

Please note that an extensive legal analysis by a prominent First Amendment attorney recently concluded such policies in public agencies are unconstitutional and many courts have said so.

Surveys sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists, our parent organization, found that over half of police reporters say they can rarely or never interview a police officer without involving a department’s public information officer.

Over 23% of police reporters said that all or most of the time, they have been prevented by a PIO from interviewing officers or investigators at all. A total of 57% said that blockage happened at least some of the time.

Over the last two to three decades, there has been a surge of policies in many types of organizations prohibiting employees from speaking to reporters without the controls, to the point it’s a cultural norm. It even occurs in congressional offices.

SPJ has called the restrictions censorship and authoritarian.

Now this culture of censorship appears to be paying some dark dividends. The current narrative is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s fumbles with COVID-19 may have cost tens of thousands lives. It could have been predicted that an agency shielding itself from public scrutiny would develop problems. CDC has an authoritarian media policy posted right on its website. It’s been many years since reporters could usually talk to agency staff without the PIO/censors. Often reporters can’t talk to agency staff at all.

In SPJ’s survey, some police PIOs said they monitor interviews so that the conversations, “stay within the parameters that we want” and, “To make sure that the reporter stays on topic and so does the [police] officer.”

Such blatant monitoring and repression of speech critically limits everyone’s understanding of institutions and will enable abuse. We make this special appeal to Congress to ensure such rules that silence police officers not be allowed to encumber reform.

Please see the recent article in SPJ’s Quill magazine, below, and the resources below that.

We would be pleased to discuss this issue with you.

(Contact person)

Kathryn Foxhall

Board Member

Randy Showstack,

President, SPJ DC

 [The original press release contains the entire Quill article.]

 RESOURCES ON “CENSORSHIP BY PIO” 

·        SPJ’s website on the issue gives background. It includes the seven SPJ-sponsored surveys that showed the censorship is pervasive. Coalitions of open government groups have written to the Obama and Trump Administrations opposing the restraints. A coalition met with Obama White House officials in 2015 to oppose the restraints. 

·        The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan’s recent column looks at the muzzling of government scientists. 

·        Columbia Journalism Review article connects the long history of these controls with current circumstances, such as the CDC being terrifyingly absent.  

·        An editorial in MedPage Today asks “You Think China Has A COVID-19 Censorship Problem? We Aren’t Much Better.” 

·        The Clearing the Fog podcast includes an episode entitled “Another Method of Censorship: Media Minders.” The relevant portion of the show begins at about 32.54 and the site includes a transcript. 

·        On Oct. 17, 2019, the House Science Space and Technology Committee voted to kill proposed provisions that would have given federal scientists the right to speak to reporters without prior permission from the authorities in their agencies. Science Magazine reported on the mark-up. 

·        On Nov. 6, 2019, SPJ and 28 other journalism and open government groups sent a letter to every member of Congress calling for support of unimpeded communication with journalists for all federal employees. 

·        Katherine Eban’s 2019 book “Bottle of Lies,” a jaw-dropping look at FDA failure, is on several “best books” lists. When the MedPage editorial (above) came out, Eban said this muzzling of government scientists was the reason it took 10 years to write the book.