Journalists Call for Biden Administration to Eliminate Limits on Reporters' Access to Federal Staff

The following press release went out from the Society of Professional Journalist on January 28.

The Society of Professional Journalists and Society of Environmental Journalists say a recent federal government report doesn’t go far enough in giving federal scientists the freedom to speak to journalists.

SPJ and SEJ sent a letter Wednesday to leaders of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy about the report, Protecting the Integrity of Government Science. The report lays out the Biden administration’s stance on ensuring scientific integrity in government.

The organizations praise the report for espousing as a fundamental principle that “federal scientists should be able to speak freely, if they wish, about their unclassified research, including to members of the press.”

But they point out that parts of the rest of the report undermine and effectively negate that principle by endorsing existing widespread agency policies and practices that specify media access to government scientists should be "in coordination with supervisors and public affairs officials." As a practical matter, that means interview and information requests are frequently delayed, inadequately responded to and often outright blocked.

“The majority of the report perpetuates the status quo and that just is not acceptable,” said Kathryn Foxhall, vice chair of the SPJ Freedom of Information Committee. “There was a time not that long ago when journalists could call up a scientist directly on the phone and ask questions or interview them for a story, and the scientist felt empowered to do the interview. But there are so many policies and procedures in place today that make that extremely difficult to do. It severely limits government transparency. It stops the flow of information from elected officials to the public. In turn, it’s the citizens of this country who are most harmed by it.”

SPJ and SEJ cite an example from July, when the chief of staff of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention emailed all employees in that office reminding them that they were not authorized to answer reporters’ questions directly and that all queries from journalists were to be referred to the press office. That email came in the wake of news that four EPA scientists in that office had filed a whistleblower complaint alleging managers had improperly watered down their chemical risk assessments.

“Having public information officers act as ‘gatekeepers’ for interview and information requests limits — and in many cases prevents — the flow of information to journalists and the citizens of this country,” said SPJ National President Rebecca Aguilar. “Instead, we’re given carefully written talking points that only support the agency’s position.

“I am proud of the work Kathryn and SPJ’s FOI Committee are doing on this issue and happy to have such a great partner in SEJ, who is as passionate about government transparency and the free flow of information as we are,” Aguilar continued.

The letter concludes, "Even though your report is final, we urge you to amend or supplement it by stating, in the clearest and strongest terms possible, that federal scientists need no one's permission to share their research or knowledge with journalists and the public. It's fine to ask them to voluntarily inform communications offices of such contacts, but they shouldn't be required to report them or fear being chastised or disciplined for not doing so. The American public deserves the full story from their government scientists and other staff, not a sanitized version that's filtered through a political or policy lens."

Report: NIH Officials Suppressed News about Fetal Tissue Cells

Last year under the Trump Administration, National Institutes of Health officials decided not to help publicize federally funded research that used fetal tissue cells, “calling it a political landmine,” according to a report in BuzzFeed News.

The news outlet had obtained emails among officials discussing the decision.

According to BuzzFeed, NIH representatives did not respond to requests for comment on the emails.

The article cited my discussion that agencies ban contact between staff and reporters without oversight and push out what they think is news: "Suppression of press alerts for political reasons is an illustration of what unconscionable conflict of interest runs through it all."

Report: Philadelphia School District Considering Forbidding 20,000 Staff from Talking to Media without Sign Off

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,  the Philadelphia School District "is mulling a policy that would forbid any of its 20,000 employees from talking to the media unless staff from its central office signs off.”

The district spokesperson is quoted as saying this kind of policy is, “standard operating procedure for organizations everywhere.”

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers president is quoted as saying it’s authoritarian.

Yale Law School Conference Hears: No Documented Case Has Upheld "No Interviews Policy"

At the Yale Law School Access and Accountability Conference last month, Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center on Freedom of Information, said that, “There is no documented case in which a government agency has successfully defended a ‘no interviews’ policy,” controlling employees speaking to the press.

And yet, he said, the policies persist and are pervasive.

I said the current cultural trend supporting these policies is catastrophic. The videos of the conference, including the “Fighting Censorship by PIO” session (number 5) are here. The agenda is here and the background papers are here.

“Censorship by PIO” to Be a Focus of Major Meeting On Free Speech from Yale Law School

The issue of fighting “Censorship by PIO” will be one of the main topics at Yale Law School’s upcoming “Access & Accountability 2021: Seize the Day”  conference, October 1-2, by Zoom.

The Washington, D.C. Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists is highlighting that session particularly due to the group’s extensive work opposing the practice of offices and agencies banning employees from speaking to the press or prohibiting such contacts without notifying authorities, often through public information offices.

 Speakers will include Kathryn Foxhall, a board member of the SPJ chapter; Gregg Leslie, longtime free speech attorney from the Arizona State University; Michael Linhorst of Yale’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic; and Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information.

 Foxhall said at a recent SPJ session that the prohibition against speaking with oversight, “is just deep corruption for people in power who institute these rules and corruption for journalists acquiesce to them. It’s the kind of corruption that gets us a public health structure that shows major problems when the crisis of many decades hits and leads to exacerbated problems.”

The opening speaker for the Yale conference will be Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment attorney who won the landmark Supreme Court case on the Pentagon Papers.

The eight other sessions at the conference will be on:

---Thinking Big about Fixing FOIA.

---Rights of the Press Clause.

---Law Enforcement Accountability.

---National Security Accountability.

---Defamation as an Accountability Tool.

---Collaboration Colloquies—projects worthy of cross clinic collaboration, including: Supporting Local Journalism.

---Director’s Dialogue: First Amendment, Friend or Foe.

---Success Stories.

The conference is free, open to the public and on Zoom.

However, registration is required:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/access-and-accountability-2021-tickets-166964773131

 

 

 

 

 

SPJ Gives Honor for Work Opposing Restrictions on Reporters Through PIOs, etc.

Readers: Apologies for tooting my own horn here, but I did want to reflect how seriously SPJ takes the issue.

Press release, Sept. 4, from Society of Professional Journalists: 

Foxhall named Wells Key winner for work against controls on reporters through public information offices

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Society of Professional Journalists honors Kathryn Foxhall with the Wells Memorial Key. This award is the highest honor for an SPJ member and was officially presented tonight at the President’s Awards Ceremony during the SPJ21 conference. Foxhall was previously informed of her honor over Zoom by friends and colleagues.

“Thank you,” said Foxhall, a member of the SPJ Freedom of Information Committee.

“We now have over four million pandemic dead. For over two decades public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, have controlled public scrutiny of themselves. Reporters are kept out of buildings, not allowed to speak to anyone without the bosses’ censors, and often not allowed to speak to anyone at all,” Foxhall said.

“Psychologist Daniel Kahneman talks about the human bias of, ‘What you see is all there is.’ The press gets what it can and mostly does not tell the public about the controls, preferring to believe whatever we get is all there is,” Foxhall continued. “Now the nation finds our structures were not prepared for a vast crisis. The U.S. has lost life expectancy at a rate 8.5 times higher than the average of 16 other high-income nations.

“Similar controls have surged in state and local governments, police departments, schools, businesses and other entities, public and private. The restraints have become part of the culture,” she said. “This is deep corruption for both the people in power and the press. Freedom of expression is not just an ideal or a liberty. It’s how we cooperate, shield people from abuse and survive.”

Foxhall has been an active member of SPJ for nearly 12 years. Within that time, she has given many years of dedicated service to the Washington D.C., Pro Chapter and is one of its most active and participatory members.

Around 2009, she began communicating with SPJ about excessive controls over public information officers, an issue that received very little attention previously. Almost singlehandedly, she gradually convinced others of the great harm caused by employee gag policies and the fear-based censorship they create.

The PIO issue was on the FOI Committee’s meeting agenda at an SPJ conference the following year because of her as efforts. Other journalism organizations also took notice and began pushing back against the controls. She presented the issue and insisted the biggest need was for some research to document the extent of the problem.

From this, two surveys were conducted: one with Washington, D.C.-area reporters and another with members of the National Association of Government Communicators. This prompted a series of annual surveys – which were timed to be released during Sunshine Week – documenting the relationship between reporters and PIOs, showing how the situation has continually worsened.

Foxhall inspired initiatives during Sunshine Week, including a letter issued to the Obama administration, which resulted in an in-person meeting between SPJ and White House staff, a new webpage with resources, events at the National Press Club and more.

She has written extensively about the PIO problem and has been quoted in Quill, The Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review and dozens of regional outlets. Foxhall has even created a committee dedicated solely to the issue through the D.C. chapter. Owing to her efforts, the Knight Columbia Institute made removing government-imposed gag orders its first “to-do” priority for the incoming Biden administration.

Foxhall is now working with SPJ Foundation Board member Frank LoMonte on identifying potential avenues for legal challenge to bring “test cases” that would clarify the First Amendment rights of employees to speak to journalists, and journalists’ rights to receive that information. She has been tireless in finding pro-bono legal representation for those brave enough to initiate legal challenges.

Friends and colleagues shared some of the many reasons for her nomination:

“Sometimes it takes just one person to lead the charge, to take the hits and confront doubt and apathy head on,” Former SPJ President David Cuillier said. “She did this well, and for that she deserves the Society’s highest honor.”

“And I cannot think of anyone else in SPJ who has devoted so much of their time and so much energy to an issue so important and so relevant to SPJ’s core principles,” Former SPJ President Carolyn S. Carlson said.

“The Wells Key can honor service to the SPJ over the preceding year or over a lifetime,” LoMonte said. “By either measure, Kathryn Foxhall is a worthy and deserving recipient. She is one of the die-hard true-believers keeping the mission of the SPJ alive in challenging times.”

SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to informing citizens; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and fights to protect First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. Support excellent journalism and fight for your right to know. Become a member, give to the Legal Defense Fund or give to the SPJ Foundation.

-END-

Asking Biden’s Science Work Group: Who Is Watching Agencies for Us?

Mean, Ugly Censorship:

Since reporters' contact with agencies is choked down, choked off and prohibited without oversight, who is watching these entities with so much power over our well-being? 

On July 28, I testified before the listening session of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the restraints on reporters in federal agencies. The written version is below.

This came after 25 journalism and other groups wrote to OSTP calling for elimination of the bans on federal employees speaking to reporters without notifying authorities, including public information officers.

Written testimony: Over the last two to three decades agencies in the federal government, like entities elsewhere, have implemented rules that ban employees from speaking to journalists without notifying authorities, often by going through public information officers.

This means in essence that no word can pass without people in power controlling it.

President Biden has been in Washington long enough to have known the days before this was the case and to have seen the transition in the agencies and Congress.

It is mean, ugly censorship. It is pervasive, it is human rights abuse and it is successful. Control of information by people in power has been one of the most debilitating, deadly things in all human history.

You should have the letter that 25 journalism and other groups have signed opposing these restrictions.

I have worked with the Society of Professional Journalists on this, but this statement is mine alone.

Please understand in many agencies reporters can’t go into the building. They cannot get credentials to do so even though thousands of employees do. Everyone in the agency is forbidden to speak to them without going to the public information officers, who have been made into our censors. When the reporter goes through the permission-to-speak process, from everything we hear, most of the time they are not allowed to speak to the person requested. In HHS the request has to go up three levels in the hierarchy. People in agencies have hidden discussions on whether to allow the contact and on what can be discussed. People in high positions block any contact they don’t want to happen.

As a 40-year reporter, if there is one thing I can get you to focus on it is that after journalists get the story through official avenues, there is always, routinely, more to the story. And we, the entire public, are walking in mine fields with all the hazards people are silenced about.

I was editor of the American Public Health Association’s newspaper during the very dark early days of AIDS. That was years before the agencies began the censorship. No one necessarily knew which reporter talked to which employee. In just one example, a fairly-highly placed official at CDC educated me about some basics, on the condition that his name not be used. That could have been worth a million lives eventually, given that we were still early in the infection spread and I was writing for public health professionals.

In contrast, the official story I would otherwise have written was interesting, accurate and insidiously curated, devoid of even basic facts that tended not to support the administration’s policies.

Thankfully, sometimes staff members today defy the rules and speak to reporters outside official avenues. However, it happens much less often because most contacts are banned and there are the censors on conversations.

Officials say they need to coordinate the information and that it is dangerous to let people just talk: they might say the wrong thing.

Coordinating the official story may be a legitimate function for agencies and offices.

However, despite all our divisions in this country, nobody wants to be allowed to hear only the story officials coordinate for them.

Free speech can be problematic, sloppy and dangerous. It has never been as dangerous as mechanisms people in power can use to control information according to their own inclinations.

Questions for the workgroup and OSTP:

---Why is it necessary to have such controls on staff members when it was not in the past?

---Why should people in official positions be allowed to implement such blockages on contacts?

---How do you know enough about the workings and character of agencies like CDC, NIH, FDA or EPA? How does anyone have a sufficient overview when the agencies control public scrutiny of themselves? Are there any independent persons watching for any of us, since the press is not there?

---Why would an agency with so little oversight not develop serious corrosion? What do we know about that? Why are we taking the risk?

---Since we know about these restrictions what responsibility do we have to the human lives that depend on these agencies?