Statement at SPJ Session: The Pervasive Gag Rules Are a Deadly Crime Against Humanity

Below is my statement given at a session at the Society of Professional Journalists meeting, MediaFest22, October 27-30.

Before I say what may sound like a conspiracy theory, I want you to know we have been looking at the gag rules, or “censorship by PIO” for like 14 years. We have had meetings and written letters. Frank LoMonte did in-depth legal analyses showing these controls are unconstitutional. I have talked to many journalists. I was deeply honored last year when SPJ gave me the Wells Key, the highest member award, specifically for this work.

So here is what I have been reluctant to say. This massive transition over the last 30-40 years, instituting gag rules everywhere, with power people banning other people from talking to journalists at all or from talking to them without constraints and guards--this is deep, deep corruption of both the insiders and the press.

This is a horrific, pervasive crime against humanity. One more time: This is a horrific, deadly crime against humanity.

We have at least six million Covid dead, in significant part because the press is so controlled.

Six million Covid dead and virtually all 90 thousand people in HHS essentially silenced. That includes some of the most expert people alive and many less exalted insiders who observe and know a lot.

We have lost our collective minds. Does anyone believe that if we weren’t frightening people from speaking, including speaking confidentially to reporters, we wouldn’t know much more about this pandemic and the workings of the institutions we rely on?

Expand that picture to the fact that these rules are applied to most of the federal government and many entities, public and private, across the nation. Why wouldn’t our systems be riddled with vulnerabilities?

Journalists just say, “Good reporters get the story anyway.”

That’s it. That’s all we got.

Our only justification for looking straight at blatant information control, probably the deadliest thing in the world ever. And we don’t tell the public.

Journalists do get stuff. And some of it is seriously impressive and impactful. We have sources. Some people do talk to us.

That is very unfortunate for the human race.

Because, while we look like we have things covered, there is not a molecule of evidence we get half of what is critical. Or even that individual stories have enough of what is critical to not be misleading. We are oblivious to what people would say if they were not under surveillance, even long after our material is published.

On the other hand, there’s much of evidence we do not get everything. Many situations come to light after a long, toxic existence.

Professor Jay Rosen said the news system is not designed for public understanding. It’s designed to produce content every day.

What can journalists do? Say it loud. Say it with alarm. Tell your community the likely impact of police departments or city administrations, silencing everyone, banning all confidential communication with the press. Investigate it. Expect most people to be passive. That’s the hardest part.

Keep saying it.

The press may not be acquiescing to these restrictions with the viciousness of Nazi propagandists. But the world is now into an era of existential crises. If we continue ignoring the information control, assuming whatever we get is all there is, this could lead to more deaths than World War II.

The session was on October 29 with the title, “Obstruction of Reporting through PIO Controls and Other Means: Responding to the Controls on Free Speech and Free Press.”


Resources

---Glen Nowak, a former CDC media relations head, confirms that the controls on the press at the agency have “worked” for officials in terms of suppressing stories they did not want published. He says they have grown tighter since the 1980s with each presidential administration realizing that the prior one suffered no adverse consequences from imposing the restrictions.

---My recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend which has made the gag rules pervasive in many kinds of entities.

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

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

-- Among many other communications over years, 25 journalism and other groups wrote to the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asking for elimination of such restrictions in the federal government.

-- Journalism groups FOI officers told the New York Times, “The press should not be taking the risk of assuming that what we get is all there is when so many people are silenced. We should be openly fighting these controls.”

-- “Editor and Publisher” featured the issue in October 2021.

Former CDC Media Relations Head: Restraints on Reporters "Worked" for Political Officials

David Shipley
Editorial Page Editor

Karen Tumulty
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
The Washington Post

 

Mr. Shipley, Ms. Tumulty:

Glen Nowak, a former CDC media relations head, confirms that the controls on the press at the agency have “worked” for officials in terms of suppressing stories they did not want published.

This means that for years prior to the pandemic officials hid things from the public, using restrictions including banning staff from speaking to reporters without oversight through the public information office. Then people in power, up through the political administration, decided behind closed doors whether the requested contact could happen and what might be said.

Nowak will be speaking at the meeting of the Society of Professional Journalists this week about the controls.

Will you join us at the session and talk about why the Washington Post and others in the press have allowed the restrictions to continue without openly opposing them or alerting the public?

My recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend. Having covered federal health agencies as the rules tightened over the 30-40 years, I have zero doubt that the press’ acquiescence to the information control was a top factor in giving us a pandemic far deadlier than it had to be.

I will argue at the session that this is a crime against humanity, with the press just as responsible as the insiders.

The automatic response from many journalists about this situation is, “Good reporters get the story anyway.” With 80,000 staff in HHS alone virtually silenced, that’s a senseless and fearful assumption to allow millions of lives to depend on.

Journalists do get some seriously impactful stories. However, it’s very unlikely we get an adequate proportion of what is critical. Various evidence of journalism’s controlled state includes the many situations that emerge only after a long, noxious existence.

Your editorial, “A Media Masquerade” rightly decries so-called news websites, paid for by political groups that “launder advocacy through these sites.” However, presidential administrations use our precious public health agencies, among other entities, to do some potent laundering by restricting what legitimate journalists can hear.

The SPJ session is “Obstruction of Reporting through PIO Controls and Other Means; Responding to the Controls on Free Speech and Free Press,” Saturday, October 29, 2:30 p.m.

I hope to see you.

Also, I will be happy to talk to anyone.

Kathryn Foxhall

CC: The Post editorial staff