(Full text of the surveys are on the SPJ website.)
Journalists Covering Federal Establishment
Say It’s Censorship
In the first survey, three-quarters of
reporters who cover federal agencies said they must get approval from public
affairs officers before interviewing an agency employee. One third said that
occurs all the time.
Half of reporters said agencies outright prohibit
reporters from interviewing at least some of the time.
Over half of the journalists said their
interviews are monitored in person or over the phone all or most of the time.
Importantly, seven of 10 journalists said
they considered the government controls over who they interview a form on
censorship.
Public Agency PIOs Say They Block Certain Reporters
A survey of public information officers in
public agencies at various levels found that almost 40 percent said, “There are
specific reporters I will not allow my staff to talk to because of problems
with their stories in the past.”
At the same time, 63 percent said they
believe controlling media coverage of the agency is a very important part of
protecting the agency’s reputation.
Controls Are Extensive and Growing at State and Local Level
In another survey, over half of political
and general assignment reporters at the state and local level said interviews
must be approved at least most of the time. Four out of five said at least some
of the time. Monitoring of reporters’ interviews is a real factor at these
levels also, with over half of reporters saying officials monitor interviews at
least some of the time and over half saying agencies or PIOs have prohibited
them from interviewing employees, at least some of the time.
As one respondent said: “We are not
allowed to interview county employees. They can be suspended or otherwise
disciplined for talking to the press.”
Seventy-eight percent agreed the public is
not getting the information it needs because of barriers imposed on reporting
and 73 percent said the controls are getting tighter.
Education Reporters
Seventy-two percent of education reporters
said PIOs or administration officials monitor interviews, either in-person or
over the phone at least some of the time: this in an era when various
institutions have been found to cover up child abuse and other malfeasance.
One reporter said, “Usually, I am told
that the person won't be useful to me.”
Almost a third of education reporters said
they had been prohibited by the PIO from interviewing school, department or
institution employees.
Science Reporters
In a separate survey 57 percent of science
writers said, “The public is not getting all the information it needs because
of barriers agencies are imposing of journalists’ reporting practices.”
One reporter said, “Much of the time it’s
difficult or impossible to talk to the persons most knowledgeable in federal
agencies. They are usually scared rabbits, and if you call directly, they will
simply refer you to public affairs.”
Other reporters said:
--“I got used to the idea that CMS doesn't
respond and stopped emailing them for comments a couple of years ago because it
seemed pointless.”
-- “New policies had been set up so that
an employee I once talked to could no longer talk to press.”
--“HHS/CMS officials spoke at length off
the record and refused to answer my questions on the record.”
--“VA and DOD can be ridiculous, cutting
researchers off mid-sentence if they're saying something they shouldn't.”
--“For example, when I interviewed, one of
EPA's well known experts on sea level rise. And it was pretty clear that he had
been reined in - he didn't speak as colorfully as he used to in the past (at
least based on past quotes from him I've seen in other media outlets).”
--“Almost all interviews with CDC, FDA are
monitored. NIH monitors some. At NIAID, they want to monitor and also demand
quote approval. I have declined interviews because of these conditions. These
conditions have worsened.”
--“At the federal level, EPA has never
been easy to work with. If my phone call is answered or returned, I get a vague
answer and reassurance that they're doing everything they can to keep
everything safe.”
Police Departments Enforce These Controls
In a survey of police reporters, 56
percent said rarely or never can they interview police officers without
involving a PIO. When asked why, reporters said, for example:
“No reason given. Individual officers are
not permitted to speak directly to the press.”
“They are not authorized to speak with the
media.”
In a survey of police PIOs, half said
there are reporters or media outlets they will not allow officers to talk to
because of problems with their stories in the past.
Almost eighty percent said they felt it
was necessary to supervise or otherwise monitor interviews with police officers
in their agency. Asked why, some PIOs said things like:
“To ensure that the interviews stay within
the parameters that we want.”
“Because I work directly for the Chief of
Police who should always know when a member of his/her department is conducting
an interview.”
“Information and to ensure that the
interviews stay within the parameters that we want.”
“To maintain consistency in messaging.”
“Keeping journalists on topic and
in-bounds.”
“Uniformity and conformity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment