Journalists call out to federal agencies: what’s to hide?
Journalists are crying foul to the current press policies of federal agencies — policies, they charge, that erode President Obama’s pledge of greater transparency.
Federal agencies are failing to live up to a directive Obama sent in a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies early in his administration:
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”
Here’s what the Association of Health Care Journalists and 10 other organizations – the American Society of Journalists and Authors, American Society of News Editors, National Association of Science Writers, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Newspaper Association, National Press Foundation, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and the Society of Professional Journalists – had to say to the Food and Drug Administration last December:
“The organizations below, representing thousands of journalists, strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration to end practices that restrict the flow of information to the public. The free flow of information is essential to democracy. But in matters of health, even more is at stake: the ability of citizens to live healthful and productive lives.”
Nor is it just the FDA. 
While the H1N1 epidemic was particularly virulent my in box filled with queries from worried readers. But before speaking on the record my sources had to get permission, which took a day or two. I had better access to state health departments than to the federal agencies in charge.
Readers’ concerns were well founded because, as it turned out, a study conducted by
the Centers for Disease Control that the Indian Health Service participated in released last December indicated American Indians in 12 states died at a rate four times higher than other races or ethnicities.
I don’t blame the IHS or the CDC. Indeed, their spokespeople urgently wanted to make news and updates known so people could take steps to protect themselves. Clearly, some directive other than Obama’s is controlling the flow of information to the press.
I’m a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the Association of Health Care Journalists, and I’ve been privy to complaints coming in from members of both organizations.
SEJ member journalists cite a number of issues, from accessibility, like a wait period before clearance to interview a source, to having a minder overseeing interviews, to being ordered not to name the agency officials who participate in media conference calls. The Environmental Protection Agency garners most SEJer’s complaints, but the U.S. Forest Service has its share, too.
In the Spring 2010 SEJournal SEJ president Christy George devoted her column to, “SEJ Works to Hold Obama Administration to it’s Pledge of Transparency.”
Twice in the last three months the EPA has ordered reporters not to name federal officials who answer questions in media conference calls. An incident last week signaled a breaking point for a number of top environmental journalists.
The EPA arranged a teleconference with one hour’s notice to discuss a plan to regulate coal ash, coal’s byproduct that contains toxic chemicals. In the advisory sent to reporters the EPA stipulated:
Administrator [Lisa] Jackson may be quoted by name, on the record, for the entire press call. In addition to the administrator, EPA officials will be on hand to answer press questions on background only. If you use or publish answers from these officials, they may be quoted as senior EPA officials.
(That prompted Osha Gray Davidson to ironically sign Obama’s directive on SEJ’s listserve, ‘senior administration official.’)
SEJ formally followed up with a letter May 4, objecting to the EPA’s “no attribution” practice at a press conference meant to inform the public. The letter sharply questioned why the Obama Administration wants to keep its speakers anonymous.
Environmental journalists are now turning to their blogs — here’s some posts that resulted from the EPA’s insistence on naming everyone a senior EPA official except Administrator Lisa Jackson:
April 23: SEJ member Ken Ward, Jr. President Obama and the mine disaster investigation: Waiting for more transparency
May 4: SEJ member Robert McClure: Obama’s supposed transparency again belied by hush-hush press conference rules at EPA
May 5: SEJ member James Bruggers: The Voice of EPA
May 7: SEJ member Curtis Brainard: Columbia Journalism Review: EPA Officials Demand Anonymity – “Hush-hush” conference calls anger reporters
Transparency: a : free from pretense or deceit : frank. b : easily detected or seen through : obvious. c : readily understood d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information.
Synonyms: obvious, apparent, visible, plain, evident, patent, blatant, understandable, clear.
Antonym: Unclear.
