Virus Origins: So Many U.S. Scientists Can't Speak to Reporters

To the Washington Post

RE: “Scientists battle over the ultimate origin story: Where did the coronavirus come from:” The world is seriously hampered in its effort to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 by the censorship of scientists and others in the United States. It is apocalyptically immoral.

Over the last two to three decades there has been a surge in restrictions by employers banning employees from ever speaking to journalists without notifying the authorities, often through public information officers.

This minder/censor system has an overwhelming tendency to silence people about anything that doesn’t fit the official story. Beyond that so many burdens and delays are placed on contacts using that chokepoint that often employees and reporters are never able to speak.

Surveys have found the restrictions are pervasive many types of workplaces. In the federal government, including science agencies, the constraints are ferocious. These include the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. This is in face of the fact that journalists routinely prove that many times the only way facts and perspectives emerge is through conversations with reporters. Sometimes those critical contacts must be confidential, without the knowledge of the bosses or their minions.

Unfortunately, there are stories we don’t get for years, if ever.

In 2019 negotiations in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee killed a proposal that would have allowed scientists, only, a little freedom to speak without censors. In 2020, as Covid deaths began to mount, CDC officials stressed to its media staff that it was not necessary to let any particular reporter speak to the person requested, no matter how persistent the request.

Thousands of scientists are effectively silenced as we round four million deaths worldwide: How can we go on with this?

SPJ surveys, etc. Public information officers - Society of Professional Journalists (spj.org)

CDC head answers journalism group. SPJ chapter calls for dialogue with agency about restraints on reporting

The following went out today, following an email reply from the CDC director to the SPJ DC chapter. 

Washington, D.C. – The Society of Professional Journalists has long worked to improve the access of reporters to officials within government agencies, in particular the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Washington, D.C. Professional Chapter of SPJ recently reached out to new CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, urging her agency to grant greater access within the agency to reporters. The SPJ chapter is encouraged by Walensky’s initial response and believes this topic requires further dialogue.

SPJ-DC wrote to Walensky in February, stating that “restrictions on staff speaking to reporters without notifying authorities amount to a human rights abuse, withholding critical perspective from the public and from health professionals. In the case of the national emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic, restricting journalists’ access to vital information collected for the public has cost lives unnecessarily and has created untold health consequences for many of those who have managed to survive.”

Walensky has responded to SPJ-DC in an encouraging manner, indicating that CDC shares SPJ’s desire for openness.

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is committed to a culture of openness that values the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry,” Walensky wrote. “I am committed to these values. We strive to provide science-based, transparent, accurate, and timely information to the media, as well as through our website, social media channels, and other communication mechanisms.”

“CDC scientists and researchers communicate with members of the press about their work. However, CDC experts are working scientists and are not always available for interviews. Our press officers serve as points of contacts for news media to provide relevant background information and to ensure questions are answered in a timely manner,” Walensky said. “CDC will continue to deliver to the public the best, most accurate, and trusted public health information.”

Although SPJ-DC is concerned that Walensky reiterated her desire for public information officers within CDC to continue to control access to scientists and officials within the agency, the journalism organization welcomes this response from Walensky.

SPJ-DC looks forward to having an on-going dialogue with Walensky and other officials at CDC about the important issues of reporters’ access and the public’s right to know.

ACLU Chapter Using Speech Restrictions with Staff

We have known for some time that the bans at many agencies or groups on staff talking to the press without notifying the authorities are just about a cultural norm.

They seem to be everywhere. Surveys sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists have shown them to be pervasive in arenas including education, science, various levels of government and law enforcement.

In one of the strongest endorsements of censorship in the 21st Century, many news outlets have these restrictions on their staff.

But a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union? Reporter Haisten Willis ran into that very thing in Georgia last year and now reports on it.

In a new twist on the restrictions, staff are apparently prohibited from giving journalist their business cards.

Biden's EPA Officials: Contact Between Reporters and Staff Still Banned without Controls

Will the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency continue the bans on any contacts between reporters and staff without notification or oversight by authorities, such as public information officers?

Yes, was answer from the new EPA public affairs leaders in a March 18 Zoom session sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists. They also indicated that the agency will not force any staff members to talk to the press if they are not comfortable doing it.

Tim Wheeler, chair of the SEJ Freedom of Information Task Force, told the officials there was a time, “when EPA scientists and other staff were often, if not routinely, allowed to talk directly to reporters without needing to get press office permission or to have minders present to monitor the interview. Can we go back to that? If not, why not?”

Lindsay Hamilton, the new EPA Associate Administrator of Public Affairs, said she would debate the word “minder,” saying it is the role of the media relations professional to get the reporter connected to the right person, to facilitate that interview, to make sure the source people feel comfortable in talking to the journalist, to take notes, to occasionally flag time, and to follow up with the reporter.

Also at the session was Nick Conger, the new EPA Press Secretary.

Hamilton said, “We do, you know, look for coordination with the Office of Public Affairs, [when a reporter asks to speak to someone] because I think that in terms of ensuring that we’re having good, accurate information, that’s getting out into the public, I think there’s a role for us to play. And in coordinating that and for having a high level of awareness about how the agency’s communicating.”

At a later point Hamilton said, “We do ask for coordination and I don't want to deny that in any way. So, I do think that they expect that they are supposed to coordinate with the Office of Public Affairs.”

She further said, “If they're going to check in and say, ‘Hey, you know, we're talking to this reporter, have you heard about the story yet?’ That’s the kind of thing that’s like really standard to our day-to-day work. I certainly kind of hope that folks want to work with us, right?”

“My goal is to make it so that people want to coordinate with us because they know that the outcome is an interview situation which they're going to feel comfortable and confident and be able to deliver information in which EPA is delivering the best available experts, the best available information for that story,” Hamilton said.

Reporters Talking about Responses and Nonresponses

Journalists listening to the session sent questions and comments.

· One reporter said they got a written response on deadline from a scientist with her name attached and was “giddy.”

· Another reporter said they were denied a request for an interview but were told answers would come “by Friday.” It did not happen. The press office asked if it would be okay to get a response a few days later, but it had not come by the time of the session.

· Another said, “I contacted the regional office twice in the last two months by email. No answer.”

· Yet another reporter said, “EPA hasn't granted me an on-the-record interview since Obama was in office and even then it was a fight.”

Hamilton said they are trying to work through the deadlines coming at them all the time, but they would like to hear about these problems. She said there will be times the agency will ask to get back to the reporter in writing, rather than granting an interview, because that is how they need to share information.

Scientific Integrity Review Targeting These Questions

Wheeler noted that President Biden, in his mandate for a task force to review scientific integrity in the federal government, has called for identifying effective practices for engagement of Federal scientists with news media and on social media. Wheeler asked if that meant agency scientists and science advisory board members would need press office okay to talk to a reporter or to have a press office person present.

Hamilton said she did not know yet, but there would be more coming on the topic soon.

Lack of Written Policy on the Controls

Asked if there is a written policy on when scientists will be available to reporters, Hamilton said that there has been broad guidance saying, “Please coordinate communications with the Office of Public Affairs.” However, she said she was not aware of any further prescriptive policy.

Permission to Speak at Sessions

Wheeler noted that in prior times a reporter could walk up to a scientist at a meeting or a press conference, speak to them and get answers on the spot. He asked if that will be possible under this administration.

Hamilton said, “They are in an on-the-record situation already. So, yeah. Absolutely.”

She added, “I will say sometimes if I'm a press person who's onsite, I will sometimes go and join a conversation like that, in part to make sure I know who the reporter is, where they're from.”

“We do like to know what people are saying about the agency to see the coverage that results in the things were are doing,” she said.

Federal Agency Coordination on Interview Policies

Bobby Magill, an SEJ board member asked, “How much coordination is there amongst federal agencies on press strategy, especially regarding press officers responding to reporter inquiries and granting reporters, access to agency staff?”

Conger answered, “Yes, we are coordinating. We do a weekly call with other agencies that kind of touch the same issues that we do….But we are in regular close coordination with our counterparts at other agencies.”

He also said, “This is very much coming down from the top, from the White House in terms of the transparency and the access, the professionalism and civility that we have committed to restoring in terms of our interactions with the press corps.”

Appointment and Visitor Logs

The officials were asked if the appointment and visitor logs of the administrator and other top EPA officials be made public? Hamilton said it was the first time she had been asked that, but she would look into it.

Staff Just Don’t Have to Answer

Wheeler said some reporters say they have tried to speak to scientists in the pesticide division and had been denied interviews. He asked if the officials could commit to allowing those interviews.

Hamilton said she would look into it, but every interview is individual.

“There are going to be people who don't want to talk to the media and we are not going to make them. We will certainly try to get you information, but it doesn't mean that every person is going to be comfortable with always giving interviews to the media.”

She added, “We tend to be pretty respectful of people’s wishes and how they use their time and how they use their voice.”

She said, “Obviously we want to give you access to their information, their publications, answers to your questions, but it doesn't mean that everyone we work with is always comfortable with doing an interview in every situation themselves.”

“If it's things that then will kind of lead into things that are in process….it might be premature to give interviews sometimes,” Hamilton said.

Conger said, in regard to issues in the past, “The idea that a scientist can’t talk because what he or she might say is contrary to the political decisions, that’s something that we’re mindful of. That was a problem. And we're serious about addressing moving forward.”

A reporter told the officials that staff people have spent years being punished for talking directly to the press. The attitude of avoiding the media is going to be tough to shift, the indication was.

Hamilton said she understood the concern and would be working with career employees and others.

Public Affairs Contacts

In response to one request Hamilton said the agency intended to quickly put online the list of press office contacts.

Mandated Anonymous Spokespersons

Wheeler asked, in cases when reporters do get answers from the press office, “Can we do away with the all-too-common practice of being told to attribute that information to an anonymous spokesperson?”

Conger said, in general, yes. However, he said, “We have learned that there are some folks who don't feel comfortable having their names associated with the statements. And that’s in part because it's not their information. They're getting it from three or four or five different people from across the EPA. And sometimes they don't feel like it’s actually coming from them. Sometimes they don't feel comfortable associating their name with that topic area….Sometimes it can be very political in nature. So we are hearing them out.”

He said, however, there are two political lead public affairs officers, Hamilton and himself: “So if it’s of a concern to a reporter….I think we're generally deferring….to putting our names against the statement.”

Hamilton said it was something she would like to hear more about: “I'm not quite sure what the differentiation is so long as it’s a spokesperson or a spokesperson with a name.”

 

Where Are We in History When the Communications Controllers Block Reporting on Themselves?

The Federal Communications Commission is holding “sharply reduced and fewer public press briefings” reflecting, “a decades long and gradual reduction in availability in commission officials to reporters,” says a recent report in Communications Daily.

The article notes: “When the chair speaks with journalists as a group, reporters are barred from asking more than one question or asking a follow-up query.”

FCC regulates interstate and international communications through cable, radio, television, satellite and wire.

Its website states it is, “responsible for managing and licensing the electromagnetic spectrum for commercial users and for non-commercial users including: state, county and local governments. This includes public safety, commercial and non-commercial fixed and mobile wireless services, broadcast television and radio, satellite and other services. In licensing the spectrum, the Commission promotes efficient and reliable access to the spectrum for a variety of innovative uses as well as promotes public safety and emergency response.”

Recent issues the agency has dealt with include net neutrality; preventing tech companies for putting users’ privacy at risk; ensuring schools access to internet services; and national security threats from technology companies of other countries.

FCC’s Lifeline program provides discounts for phone and internet service for low-income consumers.

The authors of the Communications Daily report say, “Starting under the George W. Bush administration, most FCC officials say they cannot answer reporters’ questions –- even off the record -– without involving officials from the agency who are mainly political appointees and who handle public relations. FCC PR people rarely allow such interviews.”

My summary of this: Like so many other public agencies around the nation, the FCC first created a choke point through which all newsgathering must be done. Then it eliminated most scrutiny of the agency by the press, since journalists have no alternative avenues. The public is getting a lot of officially controlled information and isn’t informed that serious reporting on the agency is not allowed.

All the Facilities Media Can't Enter, But Don't Mention

To Erik Wemple
Media Reporter
The Washington Post

Erik,

We, the media, are galloping insane.

The media report they can’t get into the facilities for child migrants on the border.

We also, by and large, can’t get into the Department of Health and Human Services building, sitting within sight of the Capitol. That is where many policies or orders--humane, inhumane or indefensible--are formed or are known about, at least. Those include policies about child migrants.

The same is true of many other federal agencies.

The media can’t contact people in HHS or other agencies—by written policy—without oversight by the authorities, often through the public information office.

In reality, the media often can’t speak to people they request at all.

In unknown confabs, in these agencies we aren’t in and can’t get to know anybody in, decisions are made about who in the media may talk to someone.

The same has been true for years, including the time building up to the 2018 policy separating children from families.

The media wait until there is a humanitarian wreck at the border to prove how protective we are of the free press.

HHS, et.al., still sit here in Washington, still locked up.

The media are misleading and negligent.

Kathryn Foxhall

The Press Wasn't Really There. And Still Isn't.

The following column was drafted by me and offered by the Society of Professional Journalists as content during Sunshine Week. At least 23 news outlets around the country picked it up.

INDIANAPOLIS — For many years before the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists “weren’t there,” to a huge extent, in terms of reporting on the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The controls keeping them out continue.

Reporters cannot enter the facilities except under controlled circumstances like official meetings. There are no credentials to allow reporters to enter, although journalists could be vetted as easily as the thousands of employees are. The rules force reporters to go through public information offices to seek permission to speak to anyone. In reality, reporters are often never allowed to speak to the people they want at all.

Last year Donald McNeil, Jr., then a New York Times reporter, said that even under the Obama administration CDC had to clear anything important through its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. But under the Trump administration, he said, “If you don’t talk to people off the record, you don’t talk to anyone because nobody is being allowed to say anything on the record,” unless it is cleared through various layers, sometimes including the White House.

Having a former New York Times reporter confirm it is good, because many other reporters say the same.

Christina Jewett won awards for her 2019 Kaiser Health News series that found FDA had for nearly 20 years, “let medical device companies file reports of injuries and malfunctions outside a widely scrutinized public database, which leave doctors and medical sleuths in the dark.” Over the six months she worked on the story, FDA never allowed Jewett to speak to a subject matter expert. She built the story through Freedom of Information Act-obtained documents and interviews with people outside the agency.

In the first months of the pandemic after CDC had already made stumbles that cost lives, a CDC official made it plain how things work, telling the agency’s media staff, “Just because there are outstanding [press] requests or folks keep getting asked to do a particular interview does not mean it has to be fulfilled.”

I have harsh questions for the press: Why, with tens of thousands of people in these institutions silenced, do we believe we are getting even half the story? Why are we implying that the public should entrust millions of lives to agencies when it is impossible to really know them? Why do we trust authorities who use their power to control public scrutiny of themselves?

Understand, among other things, reporters have heard for years the tales of behind-the-scenes controls, limitations on what may be discussed, and the “slow-rolling” that happens after a reporter makes a plea to speak to someone.

For the 25 to 30 years that these controls have surged, starting with the restrictions against employees speaking to journalists without oversight, news outlets have said little about them, certainly not explaining them in each article they impact. We cling to our traditional work ethic that says people will always try to stop us and good reporters get the story anyway.

Frequently, the reality is somewhat the reverse: journalists get stuff — some of it quite impressive, mind you — and then we deem whatever we get to be THE story.

Despite journalists’ dictum that skepticism is critical to our work, we have our own conflict of interest with being too skeptical: we need to publish stories and they need to be credible. So when FDA or CDC, with all their authority, pushes out a briefing or statement or allows an interview, that is a valuable resource to us. We want to publish it, basically. We don’t want to think about the fact that all the staff around that situation is silenced, so who can know what the real story is? We certainly don’t want to explain that to our audiences.

We also don’t want to contemplate the likelihood that if the authorities did not block us from walking around or calling around the agency, someone would tip us off to important stories that currently go unmentioned.

FDA and CDC happen to be salient, frightening examples at this moment.

In reality, the controls on reporters talking to people and doing newsgathering have become a pervasive norm through our culture. The Society of Professional Journalists did seven surveys (2012–2016) that show the restrictions have become common and often intense in federal, state and local governments, in education and science, and in police departments. One local editor told me last fall that the PIO system, along with the lack of resources, has been the death of local journalism. Other editors just said the controls have become much tighter over the years.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on March 1 that Chester County, Pennsylvania, has written into its ethics code prohibitions against employees speaking about almost anything related to their job to anybody, including friends, family or press. Later coverage said the officials, after being criticized, planned to modify the policy, but still leave it restrictive.

This deep, long term trend is a recipe for corrosion, perhaps related to or underlying the general decline in democracy. Journalists are morally obligated to find ways to oppose it. The first way, of course, is to explain it to the public, just like any other corruption, and to report on it repeatedly as it continues to be a factor.

It’s also imperative that we fight these restrictions on the policy level, for the sake of protecting people. Frank LoMonte, head of the Brechner Center, says journalists can fight the restrictions in court. We also need to continuously tell legislators and other policymakers that the controls are making us all subordinate to insiders.

There are, after all, grave consequences to the press not being allowed in the CDC, FDA or other entities that impact the public.