Why Is It Safe to Ban Federal Employees from Speaking to the Press with Monitoring?

Why is it safe for the federal government to have the current rules against employees speaking to the press without monitoring?

Is there any reason to think the rules serve the public better than free speech protections?

I sent a petition to the Biden Administration's Office of Science and Technology this week, asking their leadership to examine those questions before they simply follow the policies set by previous administrations.

Excerpts from the petition are below.

Dr. Alondra R. Nelson
Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr. Francis Collins
Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr. Nelson and Dr. Collins:

....

Journalism organizations have written to you objecting to the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s endorsement of the restrictions.

I’m petitioning OSTP to look objectively at the rules and questions around them, rather than just assert that federal agencies and others are allowed to implement them, as has happened with the recent scientific integrity report and other policies. I’m asking for researched answers on this drastic shift in information flow to the public, not simply opinion or declarations of rights for people in leadership.

Below is the full list of questions I am asking OSTP to examine, with discussion.

0000

--Why is it safe for the federal government to have the current rules against employees speaking to the press without monitoring? On occasion some employees defy the rules, talk to journalists without the monitoring and bring us critical information. The fraud and poor regulation in generic drug industry was brought out in the book, “Bottle of Lies,” which author Katherine Eban said took 10 years to write because of the muzzling of government scientists. Why do we expect such abridgement of speech not to hide things?

--Is there any reason to think the rules serve the public better than free speech protections? Government leaders often cite facts such as a person not chosen by officials might say the wrong thing. That is completely true, but does not answer why controls on what so many people can say by a few people in leadership will lead to better outcomes overall.

--When and how did these restraints come about? A number of journalists remember first encountering them in the late 1980s or the 1990s, apparently as the public relations profession expanded. What do we know about their history and why they were adopted? Was there ever any public discussion or debate?

--Were they instrumental in hiding problems that resulted in a pandemic worse than it had to be? The CDC and FDA are sources of numerous complaints of blockages even after reporters ask permission to speak from public information offices.

--Why are they constitutional? The extensive legal analysis from The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information finds that these rules, although very common, are unconstitutional and that many courts have agreed with that. The longer version is a legal brief.

--Given the policies’ pervasiveness, have they moved us toward an authoritarian or otherwise unfree society? The Bureau of the Census and the Federal Communications Commission have these policies. Would they be used to keep an administration or political party in power?

Resources

--Yale Law School’s recent conference on access included “Censorship by PIO.”

--Attached to this email are excerpts from an interview with an FDA newsletter editor who used to report by walking the halls of FDA.

--The Society of Professional Journalists has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian.

--The Society of Professional Journalists has sponsored surveys showing the restraints are pervasive in federal, state, and local government, education, government science agencies and police departments.

--A recent webinar, “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.

--Last July, 25 journalism and other groups wrote to OSTP asking that the blockages be ended and that reporters be given credentials to enter facilities.

--Last year the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency affirmed that it would continue these controls.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000

Summaries of SPJ Surveys

SPJ sponsored seven surveys (2012 to 2016) that showed the censorship is pervasive in federal, state, and local government, education, government science agencies and police departments. Seven of 10 federal-level journalists said they consider the government controls over who they interview a form of censorship. Forty percent of federal PIOs admit to blocking specific reporters because of past “problems” with their stories. Seventy-eight percent of political and general assignment reporters at the state and local level say the public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers to reporting.

Fifty-six percent of police reporters said rarely or never can they interview police officers without involving a PIO. Asked why they monitor interviews, some police PIOs said things like: “To ensure the interviews stay within the parameters that we want.”

Almost half of science writers said they were blocked from interviewing agency employees in a timely manner at least sometimes. Fifty-seven percent said the public is not getting all the information it needs because of barriers to reporting.