The
Freedom of Information Committee for the Society of Professional Journalists
invites researchers to look at the development of controls over journalists
through media relations departments.
Over
the last 20 to 30 years there has been a surge in rules in various entities,
public and private, prohibiting employees and others from speaking to reporters
without being overseen and controlled by authorities, often public information
officers.
The
restrictions are serious, for example, in federal agencies and Congressional
offices.
SPJ
has called the restrictions censorship
and authoritarian. The society
did seven surveys (2012 – 2016) that showed the controls had become common and
often intense on federal, state and local levels, in education and science. Perhaps
most chillingly they are used by many police departments. Some of those
findings were summarized in a peer-reviewed journal.
We
believe this is a fertile field for further research for political
communication, public health, journalism, democratic engagement, psychology and
others.
Many
reporters who have experienced the transition consider it quite harmful. For
example, for years before the pandemic, reporters were not usually been able
speak to anyone in CDC and FDA without involving the PIO/censors. Often
reporters are completely blocked.
Researchers
might want to look at how this relates to the “Permanent Campaign.”
Also,
note First Amendment Attorney Frank LoMonte did a legal analysis in late 2019 that
said the rules are unconstitutional and many courts has said so.
Below
is a list of resources.
For further discussion,
please contact: Kathryn Foxhall
kfoxhall@verizon.net
Resources on “Censorship
by PIO”
• SPJ’s website on the issue gives background. It includes the seven surveys SPJ
sponsored from 2012-2016.
• A Columbia Journalism Review article connects
the long history of these controls with current circumstances, such as the CDC
being terrifyingly absent.
A side note: in the article the former CDC media person
(1999-2013), Glen Nowak, indicates that during his tenure, in the absence of a
public directory it was difficult for journalists to identify who in the agency
to talk to. He does not mention that media relations office involvement
was forced on reporters, even when we were very versed in who we needed to talk
to. Also, for years CDC had a 100-page directory of experts, listed by
alphabetical order of expertise, with direct phone numbers, which they gave
reporters. We have a 1985 copy.• Editorial in MedPage Today: “You Think China Has A COVID-19 Censorship Problem? We Aren’t Much Better.”
• Radio
interview on “Clearing the Fog,” April 6. “Another Method
of Censorship: Media Minders.”
Media Minders portion of the show begins at about minute 32.54. The site
includes a transcript.
• The Knight Institute at Columbia
University released documents on June 9 on CDC’s policies on employee speech. One
internal email tells media staff that certain requests from the press for
interviews should not even be considered and states: “Just because there are
outstanding requests or folks keep getting asked to do a particular interview
does not mean it has to be fulfilled.”
• 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. The vote shows how deep the cultural
norm is.
• In its
most recent resolution on
the issue, SPJ says the constraints are authoritarian and the public has a
right to be dubious of statements from organizations in which employees can’t
speak without guards.
• 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.
• The
book “Censored 2020” has an article by Kathryn Foxhall noting, “Everyone
in those agencies is thus silenced today. So if there areas the FDA still
didn’t clean up or if CDC staff are still playing games with anthrax, we likely
won’t find out.”
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
CDC Tells Media: We Tell
You Who to Talk To
Notice on the
CDC Website: From FAQ for Reporters
Press officers
are here to make sure your questions get answered by the best spokesperson for
your story, within your deadline. CDC experts are working scientists and may
not be available for interviews at all times. A press officer can help you find
the best expert or spokesperson to answer your questions.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
Media Relations Handbook:
Silence All the People Who Know
The
last edition listed is 2012.
Media
Relations Handbook for Government, Associations, Nonprofits and Elected
Officials
From
the blurb on Amazon:
By Bradford Fitch, Editor: Jack Holt. The Media
Relations Handbook is called "the big blue book" on Capitol Hill.
From
chapter nine:
“Reporters
decry these closed-mouth operations, as they often result in only the
sanitized, organizationally endorsed message being released to the public. And
sometimes this penchant for secrecy can lead to dangerous misjudgments and
abuses of power. But public policy groups and public figures have a right to
determine their own fate and to articulate their own messages
00000
“However,
it must be made clear to all staff that they should deal with the media only when
authorized by the public relations team. Loss of control over communications
can be a disaster for an organization, leading to public controversy and loss
of credibility.
00000
“One
Capitol Hill chief of staff puts his office policy very succinctly to his
non-press staff: “If I ever read your name in the paper, it better be in the
obituaries….Or it will be.”
0000
Chapter
Four
On
talking about asking reporters when they first call questions such as “What are
you writing about?” and “What information or interviews have you already
compiled?” Fitch says, “Most reporters will answer some or all of these
questions in the initial call. They understand they need your cooperation to do
their job, and the best way to get that is to cooperate with you.”
Position
2085, Kindle Edition.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
Summaries of SPJ Surveys and History
SPJ sponsored
seven surveys (2012 to 2016) that showed the censorship is pervasive. 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.
Coalitions of 38 to over 60
journalism and 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment