Glen Nowak
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.
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
You said this is why there is concern about it from political people?
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
But that somehow, the thing about adding disclaimers, that somehow isn’t seen as working for an interview with a reporter.
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
Interpreting the Data
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
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.
Scientists, Media Attention and an Administration’s Goals
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
An Administration’s Priority: Typically, to Remain Elected
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Evolution of the Administrations’ Controls on Reporters
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
Right.
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
Yes.
Kathryn Foxhall
Okay. So, would you say that on a very basic level that just constrains how many contacts there can be?
Even Agency’s Leadership Voices
Often Aren’t There
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Five-Minute Contacts, Problems with Contacts
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
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.
Unintended Consequences from Statements
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.
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.”
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
Yes.
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?
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
Now, would you say that, again, there are studies published in journals that have potential for greater recognition?
Leaders, Administrators Don’t Want Surprises
Glen Nowak
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.
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.”
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.
Our New Age of Massive Information;
Fights for Attention
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
New Focus on What the Story Is
Glen Nowak
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?
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
And whether they are what?
Agencies, Businesses Have Their Own Platforms
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.]
Orders Not to Talk to Certain Reporters
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
I’m sorry. That last thing was they drew that conclusion on quotes in articles...?
Glen Nowak
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.
What Happens When a Reporter
Does Not Get Through
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
True, yeah.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Journalists Have to Make the Case
As to What’s Missing
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.
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?
Contractors and Others
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
What are the contractors told about these policies?
Glen Nowak
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.
Everything through HHS Assistant Secretary
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
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.”
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
And it’s your understanding that this whole process usually has to happen with every with everybody in HHS?
Glen Nowak
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.
When a Reporter Speaks to Someone Directly
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
I would guess in most times, that would be the case.
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
Right.
But Usually a Reporter Can’t
Speak to Someone Directly
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
What’s Killed When a Reporter Can’t Speak
To Someone Directly
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
Are you saying it’s on us?
It’s on Journalists
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
So why do you think we’re not doing that?
Glen Nowak
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.
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.”
Kathryn Foxhall
Would you agree that political people, public affairs people, communicators: They know this, very well?
Glen Nowak
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].
Kathryn Foxhall
Just a second. The tape recorder dropped and I’m trying to make sure it’s still going.
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.
Glen Nowak
Right.
Kathryn Foxhall
I’m sorry that last sentence, I don’t think I got.
Glen Nowak
I just don’t know what else to say. I mean, it’s true. Yes.
Kathryn Foxhall
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?
Glen Nowak
How so? I’m not understanding the question.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
Okay, give me give me an example that.
Too Much Access Is Not Useful for the Agency
Glen Nowak
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?
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?”
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.”
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
Right, but, again, political people aren’t going to say, “Well, that’s great. We want to help you do that.”
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.
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
I’m sorry. The last thing was the controls diminish the prevalence of the stories they don’t want?
Glen Nowak
Yeah. Right. So, from their perspective, it works.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
So where do you think we go from here?
Glen Nowak
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.
Kathryn Foxhall
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.”
Glen Nowak
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.
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?
I have an 11:30 a.m. meeting I have to attend.
Kathryn Foxhall
Yes, I realized I’m kept you a while. I really appreciate everything. Anything else? I’m just looking over my notes to see...
Glen Nowak
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?
Kathryn Foxhall
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.
Glen Nowak
Sure. Good luck and happy.... I look forward to seeing where this goes.
Kathryn Foxhall
Okay. Thank you very much, Glen.
