SPJ Webinar Will Look at the Censorship by PIO Issue

The Society of Professional Journalists plans a webinar on the media relations censorship or “Censorship by PIO” issue for May 5. It will feature Paul Fletcher, SPJ’s Freedom of Information chairperson; Frank LoMonte, the First Amendment attorney whose extensive analysis says the restraints are unconstitutional and that many courts have said so; and myself.

Further details to come.

In the Midst of the Pandemic, Some Focus on the Dangers on the Media Relations Censorship

Several news outlets have focused on the media relations censorship or “Censorship by PIO” issue in relation to the pandemic. Below are three.

Washington Post

Washington Post Media columnist Margaret Sullivan did a piece on the PIO/media relations controls on April 18. She cites my memories reporting on agencies over the last two to three decades: “Direct contact was minimized and tightly monitored. Interviews might take place with a public-relations ‘minder’ present.”

Sullivan also quotes First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte asserting, “There’s a widespread misperception that you check all your free-speech rights at the door when you take a job,” speaking of both government and private corporations.

Columbia Journalism Review

A Columbia Journalism Review article connects the long history of these controls with current circumstances, with among other things, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention being terrifyingly absent from public view.

“Ultimately, the concern is the public’s ability to understand exactly where information is coming from and to judge its accuracy themselves, a process in which the media is intrinsically involved,” the article by Cinnamon Janzer says.

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 going through the media relations office was forced on reporters, even when we were very versed in who we needed to talk to.

In addition, for years CDC had a 100-page directory of experts, listed by alphabetical order of expertise, with direct phone numbers and building locations. They handed it out to reporters.

I have a 1985 copy.

Clearing the FOG

“Clearing the FOG” radio producers interviewed me on the PIO/media relations controls. It aired on WBAI in early April. Available on podcast.

Here’s part of one of my responses: “The idea that without this access it’s harder to do ethical journalism is a point that I’m pushing right now very hard. Journalists talk about this a great deal among themselves. And that includes journalists from the most prominent news organizations. We’ve had whole sessions on it in journalism organizations, in journalism meetings. But somehow or other we don’t tell the public in any big way. Why is that? Maybe it’s because we don’t want to tarnish our own brand….We look at it as a problem and as an irritant to our work, but we can’t bring ourselves to even admit among ourselves that this is keeping stuff from us and from the public.”

Concerns about CDC's Quiet: Remember All the Censorship While We Got Ourselves into This Mess

The Knight Institute for the First Amendment at Columbia University has sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seeking release of information on policies restricting staff rights to speak to the press.

“Recent news stories indicate that the White House started requiring CDC scientists and health officials to coordinate with the Office of Vice President Mike Pence before speaking with members of the press or public about the pandemic,” says the Institute.

In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists filed a letter with CDC saying the agencies’ experts should be able to speak directly to the public about the coronavirus pandemic.

“We at the Union of Concerned Scientists have noticed an ongoing pattern in the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic—scientists and public health officials from the CDC are no longer speaking directly to the public. No media interviews, no press briefings…just silence since early March.”

It’s horrifying that CDC is apparently on lockdown from speaking to the press or the public, now, when the agency is one of the most important entities on the globe.

It’s critical to understand, however, CDC has been on lockdown pretty much for anything other than the official story since late in the last century. And that was while the world was lurching toward this point of being unprepared for a pandemic.

All that time CDC, like many other federal agencies and other entities, has banned its staff from ever speaking to reporters without going through a public information office. A CDC justification is below.

The thing is, despite any justification, censorship induces horrors. CDC’s decades-old policy means no staff person is allowed to speak without oversight at the bosses’ behest. That often means there are whole universes of facts and perspectives the person being interviewed will not mention. Reporters may publish some really interesting stuff, but it often won’t be the things keeping the staff people up at night. What is hidden is constantly dangerous to public welfare and the constraints are of the same linage as China’s information control.

Beyond the mandate oversight, the reporters are often not allowed to speak to the people they request. Note below the CDC statement’s indication that the press officer can find the best spokesperson for the reporter. That means the press officer will also determine who the reporter will not talk to.

Those aspects of the controls are the most basic and they are quite enough to ensure deadly risks and corrosion, hidden indefinitely.

However, there is also the fact any normal level of contact is choked off by the permission-to-speak mandate itself. There are thousands of journalists and thousands of staff separated by that wall. For everybody’s welfare, they should be talking to each other. There is only one small opening in the wall, consisting of a few public information officers. Every contact must be assigned one of those chaperones. That alone, from the outset, kills most conversations that might have happened.

So, in this time when we are concerned that CDC is closed off, let’s be careful what we ask for. Be hyper-aware that if CDC begins making official statements again, prominently, there will still be those thousands of staff people who are, in effect, silenced.

***

This is on CDC’s website under frequently asked questions for reporters:

“Why is it necessary to go through a press officer when I want to talk with a CDC expert?

“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.”

Health News Review Gives Some Status and History of Media Policy Censorship

Health News Review gives some history and current events related to the censorship through media policies:

"It’s not a new issue with COVID-19 information. The Trump Administration is not the first to put up a wall blocking journalists. Many journalists were increasingly vocal about restrictions placed on them by the Obama administration.

"The history of restrictions on reporters trying to cover the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the CDC, the EPA and other federal health agencies has not been researched thoroughly enough, and thus, it’s a story not told often enough or well enough. "

A quote from me; “I don’t think anything can be more dangerous than something the press will not talk about or does not understand as a danger,” she says. “It’s not ethical journalism to take information in a controlled setting and publish it without telling the public that this information control is going on. You are at high risk of being harmful to public welfare.”

China, U.S. Killing People with Silence

As the pandemic began to explode, Medpage Today published my editorial, "You Think China Has A COVID-19 Censorship Problem? We Aren't Much Better:"

"The many thousands of people in HHS, including those with the best knowledge of the current crisis, are effectively silenced, even after unenlightened news articles are published. There are many things hidden because journalists can't talk to people without reporting to the authorities. Those unmentioned things might be about budget constraints or political pressures. They may well be something you and I can't imagine.”

Journalism Group Calls on Administration To End Speech Restrictions, Old and New

The following was released by the D.C. Chapter of the Society of  Professional Journalists  yesterday:

According to news reports the administration has tightened controls on government health officials and scientists in terms of all statements and public appearances about the Corona COVID-19.

The D.C. Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) warns that such control over the communication of health officials and scientists to the journalists is dangerous and damaging to the public's understanding of the coronavirus situation, as well as most other issues.

The chapter, representing many decades of reporting experience, emphasizes to policymakers that critical understanding often is only uncovered or pulled together when the journalists can talk to people without oversight and when they can talk in confidence to experts, if necessary.

We appreciate the need, at times, for leaders to designate particular persons or arenas as the source of the official story. However, silencing or hampering other flows of expression only ensures that all of us, including the leaders, are in the dark about many things.

We stress the current restrictions are only the latest step in a

decades-long trend to control reporting and information flow. Many

agencies and offices in the federal government and elsewhere have for years prohibited employees from speaking to the press without

 permission from the authorities, often through public information

 officers. The restrictions withhold information that belongs to the

public.

We encourage reporters to reflect this background in their coverage.

We note as salient examples of these long-standing restrictions at

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the National

Institutes of Health. Staff are prohibited from speaking to reporters

without controls, and most staff can never talk to reporters.

A recent, extensive legal review concludes that the restrictions are

illegal. SPJ's press release on that, with links to the society's work

on the issue, is below [here].

The Society of Professional Journalists is the nation's most

broad-based journalism organization, dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior.

In-Depth Legal Review Says Agency Controls on Reporters Are Illegal

An in-depth review of legal cases concludes that the prohibitions many government agencies have against employees speaking to reporters without permission are illegal.

The article in the Kansas Law Review also says journalists themselves should be able to bring suit to stop the gag orders, rather than waiting for an agency employee to do it.

Both the Society of Professional Journalists and the D.C. Chapter of the SPJ hailed the analysis as a breakthrough in the fight against this severe censorship that has been intensifying for over a quarter of a century.

The 70-page review analyzes dozens of Supreme Court and other legal cases. It says the “overbroad” restraints are unenforceable constitutionally, “yet still proliferate and still exert a powerful influence on the way employees behave.”

The article, by Frank LoMonte, head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, is a broader discussion of the information that appeared in the Brechner Center Issue Brief released in October.

Patricia Gallagher Newberry, Society of Professional Journalists national president, said, “Censorship has stalked a horrific path through history. This is another instance. It is heartening to find another way to fight this trend toward silencing public employees, which SPJ has identified as a grave risk to public welfare.”

SPJ’s most recent resolution on the matter, approved at its annual meeting in September, states, “Journalists’ obligation to do all they can to seek the full truth includes fighting against barriers to understanding the full truth and reporting those barriers to the public.”

I urge all journalists, including editors and publishers, to read the Brechner Review. It not only gives the press a path for fighting these restrictions through the legal system. It empowers us right now to stand up to myriad agencies on all levels and say, “Yeah! This is censorship. This is unconstitutional.”