Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
One of the most frustrating things about my time covering the federal government was the inability to get even basic information without digging through the federal register and complex data sets or filing a Freedom of Information Act request. Sometimes it took months to get information that way, which sort of takes the "new" out of "news." If I could get someone in the know to speak with me, it was always off-the-record or on background, leading to a surfeit of "anonymous" sources. Reporters hate those even more than readers do.
I worked during the Bush administration, which was bad enough. But these new rules implemented at Health & Human Services are positively draconian. New guidelines ban federal employees from speaking with reporters unless they report their activity to "public information officers" and supervisors. A journalist who covers the FDA wrote a scathing letter to HHS to protest this policy, in which he explains the basics of how reporting is stifled under such a policy and how it violates the First Amendment.
Here's the first paragraph of his note:
The new formal HHS Guidelines on the Provision of Information to the News Media represent, to this 36-year veteran of reporting FDA news, a Soviet-style power-grab. By requiring all HHS employees to arrange their information-sharing with news media through their agency press office, HHS has formalized a creeping information-control mechanism that informally began during the Clinton Administration and was accelerated by the Bush and Obama administrations. The U.S. now takes a large step toward joining other information-controlling countries like my native Australia, where government employees who talk with the news media without permission commit a federal crime. I came to the U.S. in 1974 to escape this oppression.
Today, by the way, is International Right To Know Day, which marks the need for greater access to government-controlled information. You can read about how Voice of America is supporting this effort in other countries. Perhaps it's time for them to bring the campaign home.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
If free-market capitalism is chopped down, and falls in the forest, but nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?
Oct '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
Yet another problem that would be ameliorated by smaller government. Is there nothing a smaller state can't fix?
Aug '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the sentiment. I do not like the idea of low-level government employees speaking to the media without permission.
The way I see it, too many government employees think that they are somehow separate from "the government". The reality is that once you're getting a government paycheque, you ARE "the government". It isn't healthy for one part of an organization to be complaining IN PUBLIC about another part of the organization, and IMHO that holds true for the government.
I make an exception for genuine whistleblowers who are bringing genuine malfeasance to public light, but otherwise I think communications coming out of a government agency SHOULD be coordinated by the folk in charge.
I don't see it as a violation of the freedom of the press, or freedom of speech for government employees. If I speak ill of my employer to the press, I shouldn't expect my employer to sit back and shrug it off. I don't see how a government employee should be treated any differently.
Aug '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
This, I can agree with. The problem of requiring permission to speak to the media would be lessened if there were fewer "levels of authorization" required to get permission. If employees had a more direct channel to "the top", then there would be less chance of cross-communications.
Dec '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
So the solution, Misthiocracy, is not in allowing employees in the lower levels to speak; rather, it is in making those at the upper levels speak more. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Aug '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
Pretty close to it, yup, that's one possibility that a government manager could take. That, and reducing the number of levels, period.
Another tactic would be for communications decision-makers to provide really good, up-to-date talking points for lower-level staff, so they can all stay on the same page.
I often find one of the frustrations for government staffers isn't that they're told what to say, but rather that they aren't given any real direction on the organization's position for a given issue. It's far more effective to give lower-level staffers some constructive direction than to simply tell them to keep their mouths shut.
But yeah, basically upper-level communications staff need to do their freakin' jobs.
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
Misthiocracy: Sorry, but I have to disagree with the sentiment. I do not like the idea of low-level government employees speaking to the media without permission.
The way I see it, too many government employees think that they are somehow separate from "the government". The reality is that once you're getting a government paycheque, you ARE "the government". It isn't healthy for one part of an organization to be complaining IN PUBLIC about another part of the organization, and IMHO that holds true for the government. ...
I don't see it as a violation of the freedom of the press, or freedom of speech for government employees. If I speak ill of my employer to the press, I shouldn't expect my employer to sit back and shrug it off. I don't see how a government employee should be treated any differently. · Sep 28 at 7:28am
Except that the government is the government and the private sector is the private sector. The taxpayer and the general public have a legitimate and genuine interest in knowing what the government they fund and support is doing. That is not the same for the private sector.
Jun '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
Forget talking. Unless there is a legitimate secret function, the minutes of every single conversation, phone call, web browsing history, etc on company time should be available to tax payers for review. I can't imagine a legitimate secret at HHS.
Aug '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
While true, I do not believe it absolves agents of the government of all responsibility for working within the organization. I shudder to imagine the chaos that would result from a government agency that gave every employee the freedom to freelance at will.
I agree that FOI laws are too slow/restrictive. I agree that senior government officials are too light-lipped. I do not agree that the solution is to create an organizational free-for-all.
Edited on Sep 28, 2011 at 12:33pmAug '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
This, I could also agree with, since we're talking about factual, recorded information, rather than the opinions of lower-level employees who may-or-may-not be well-informed on the issue and may-or-may-not have a personal axe to grind.
Basically, my feelings boil down to this: I agree that the public should have extremely open access to government information and data, but that the decision-makers in the government should have near total control over government comment and/or opinion.
The position of the government on any particular issue is the domain of elected officials and their immediate delegates, not lower-level bureaucrats. If bureaucrats want to comment on government policy to the media, they should get themselves elected first.
(FYI: Australia goes to far making it a CRIME to speak to the media. It's a possible firing offense, not a criminal one.)
Edited on Sep 28, 2011 at 12:33pmAug '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
...
Edited on Sep 28, 2011 at 12:31pmMay '10
Re: Obamacare Media Policy ‘a Soviet-style Power-grab’
Misthiocracy: Sorry, but I have to disagree with the sentiment. I do not like the idea of low-level government employees speaking to the media without permission.
The way I see it, too many government employees think that they are somehow separate from "the government". The reality is that once you're getting a government paycheque, you ARE "the government". It isn't healthy for one part of an organization to be complaining IN PUBLIC about another part of the organization, and IMHO that holds true for the government.
I make an exception for genuine whistleblowers who are bringing genuine malfeasance to public light, but otherwise I think communications coming out of a government agency SHOULD be coordinated by the folk in charge.
I don't see it as a violation of the freedom of the press, or freedom of speech for government employees. If I speak ill of my employer to the press, I shouldn't expect my employer to sit back and shrug it off. I don't see how a government employee should be treated any differently. · Sep 28 at 7:28am
This is America. Say what you want.