Due in part to new attention to Artificial Intelligence, the Department of Commerce, has new visibility.
Commerce, with a budget of about $15 billion, is the parent agency of the Bureau of Economic Analysis; the U.S. Census Bureau; the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and other entities.The department sent a memo last year stressing to employees that the Office of Public Affairs is responsible for coordinating Department communications, saying that requirement, "helps to ensure consistency of message and to maximize the impact of our efforts.”
It also said such coordination, “helps to avoid surprises, whether for the White House, the Secretary, or other Department senior staff.”
I contacted numerous people in the department over several months, including the Secretary's office, asking if such restrictions on speech would not slow or block information and, in effect, ban public knowledge of dissent within the Department.
I have not received a reply.
Why wouldn't such heavy suppression of speech by people dealing with issues such as AI not leave holes in what we understand?
My letter to Commerce is below.
Secretary Gina Raimondo
The U.S. Department of Commerce
Madam Secretary:
Your Freedom of Information office supplied me with the memorandum, “Clearance Guidance for Communications," now copied on here.
The FOI officer said the date is January 26, 2023.
Apparently, the policy, in effect, directs employees to have no conversations with reporters without involvement by the public information offices.
A number of journalism organizations have opposed these type policies for many years.
Among other problems, there is always information that will come out only by people speaking to journalists confidentially, something the Commerce policy would prohibit.
I’m doing an article about this policy for journalists and others and I wanted to ask you to comment.
Are you not concerned that the restrictions on speech between reporters and employees will slow or effectively block the flow of important information to the public, to experts inside and outside the department, and even to yourself?
In this time when your department is taking an important role in artificial intelligence, among other issues, will these restrictions be a factor in hampering the understanding of what is happening with such things? (A New York Times’ article asserts nations are losing a global race on A.I harms.)
The memorandum expresses concern about ensuring “all communications reflect a whole of Commerce approach that will keep us aligned….”
Does this in effect ban the public’s knowledge of dissent?
The memo indicates concerns about coordinating communications, not having units within the Department competing for news coverage and avoiding surprises for the White House, or other leadership. Other agencies cite similar concerns.
Can such concerns justify having people in positions of power controlling information? Has that not been one of the most damaging things in human history?
Many leaders would want to have an official avenue for the official story. However, does that necessitate blocking all other avenues? Do Americans want only controlled messages? Is it best for science or other understanding?
How is it responsible for any of us to trust public welfare to a human institution that is intensely controlling public scrutiny of itself? Given such things as the missteps in the Covid pandemic, are you concerned about the information other agencies are controlling?
Some resources on this issue are below.
I’d appreciate your discussion.
Thank you.
Kathryn Foxhall
Cc: Department of Commerce staff
Resources
--Glen Nowak, a former CDC head of media relations and a longtime communications employee, has said that since the 1980s the restrictions on CDC staff have grown tighter with each presidential administration; every contact with a reporter is controlled by the higher political levels; and that this system “works” for officials in terms of suppressing information.
-- The Society of Professional Journalists has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian.
-- My 2022 article in the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend. I am a longtime health reporter and serve as a point person on the gag rules.
-- Among many 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.” The longer version of the letter is here.
-- “Editor and Publisher” featured the issue in October 2021.
My letter to Commerce is below.
Secretary Gina Raimondo
The U.S. Department of Commerce
Madam Secretary:
Your Freedom of Information office supplied me with the memorandum, “Clearance Guidance for Communications," now copied on here.
The FOI officer said the date is January 26, 2023.
Apparently, the policy, in effect, directs employees to have no conversations with reporters without involvement by the public information offices.
A number of journalism organizations have opposed these type policies for many years.
Among other problems, there is always information that will come out only by people speaking to journalists confidentially, something the Commerce policy would prohibit.
I’m doing an article about this policy for journalists and others and I wanted to ask you to comment.
Are you not concerned that the restrictions on speech between reporters and employees will slow or effectively block the flow of important information to the public, to experts inside and outside the department, and even to yourself?
In this time when your department is taking an important role in artificial intelligence, among other issues, will these restrictions be a factor in hampering the understanding of what is happening with such things? (A New York Times’ article asserts nations are losing a global race on A.I harms.)
The memorandum expresses concern about ensuring “all communications reflect a whole of Commerce approach that will keep us aligned….”
Does this in effect ban the public’s knowledge of dissent?
The memo indicates concerns about coordinating communications, not having units within the Department competing for news coverage and avoiding surprises for the White House, or other leadership. Other agencies cite similar concerns.
Can such concerns justify having people in positions of power controlling information? Has that not been one of the most damaging things in human history?
Many leaders would want to have an official avenue for the official story. However, does that necessitate blocking all other avenues? Do Americans want only controlled messages? Is it best for science or other understanding?
How is it responsible for any of us to trust public welfare to a human institution that is intensely controlling public scrutiny of itself? Given such things as the missteps in the Covid pandemic, are you concerned about the information other agencies are controlling?
Some resources on this issue are below.
I’d appreciate your discussion.
Thank you.
Kathryn Foxhall
Cc: Department of Commerce staff
Resources
--Glen Nowak, a former CDC head of media relations and a longtime communications employee, has said that since the 1980s the restrictions on CDC staff have grown tighter with each presidential administration; every contact with a reporter is controlled by the higher political levels; and that this system “works” for officials in terms of suppressing information.
-- The Society of Professional Journalists has said the controls are censorship and authoritarian.
-- My 2022 article in the Columbia Journalism Review is on the history of this trend. I am a longtime health reporter and serve as a point person on the gag rules.
-- Among many 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.” The longer version of the letter is here.
-- “Editor and Publisher” featured the issue in October 2021.
