Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Oklahoma Sued By ACLU Over Concerns Of Censorship On Critical Race Theory Topics – news9.com KWTV

A house bill that passed this spring is now coming under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over concerns it censors some topics in public schools.

When House Bill 1775 went into emergency effect this summer, it was unclear what impact the legislation would have on Oklahoma classrooms.

The bill was passed along party lines by Republican lawmakers who sought to limit conversations about race or gender at public schools.

Now the ACLU cites specific examples in its lawsuit against the state saying the broad language in the law chills free speech and violates the states education standards.

The harm is coming from how broadly the bill is written, how confusing the language is, and how steep some of the consequences are for violating that very broad language, said Megan Lambert, ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director.

Lambert said educators are removing content on race and gender out of an abundance of caution, because community members can have their credentials pulled for violating the law, through a complaint process thats open to the public.

Edmond Public Schools is named in the suit for cancelling diversity trainings and changing its booklist to follow guidance from the bill.

The district removed books by women and Black authors, like To Kill A Mockingbird, A Raisin In The Sun, Their Eyes Are Watching God, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, and Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas.

Anthony Crawford, an English teacher at Millwood Public Schools,is one of the plaintiffs. He said the law is unclear to teachers and contradicts the Oklahoma Education Standards.

Everything they are telling us we cannot teach is in the Oklahoma Standards, he said.

Crawford said he is concerned about the harsh penalties to teachers.

I was scared. Im not going to lie to you. I was petrified, I got a daughter on the way, so I was really scared, he said.

But, without being able to teach about themes like systemic racism or diversity, he said students will be unprepared as adults.

Without that piece of information, without that history, then they will go into the real world blindsided, Crawford said.

At the Capitol, some are standing by the law.

Secretary of Education Ryan Walters said in a statement the bill ensures students are taught an honest depiction of the past and knows teachers can teach that without prejudging those who are responsible for our future.

There were several other states that passed similar bills during spring of 2021 seeking to ban a concept called critical race theory, even though the concept isn't taught in K-12 schools or well-defined in K-12 settings.

The ACLU said Oklahoma's restrictions are the most severe.

Read the complaint in full below.

Read the rest here:
Oklahoma Sued By ACLU Over Concerns Of Censorship On Critical Race Theory Topics - news9.com KWTV

Amnesty report reveals use of censorship to reduce quality of public information – Euronews

Amnesty International has released a report documenting how the pandemic affected freedom of expression and the impact of misinformation.

According to its findings, some countries have used censorship and punishment to reduce the quality and quantity of information reaching the public domain, thus damaging people's ability to understand how to deal with COVID-19.

Speaking to Euronews, Amnesty International researcher on human rights defenders Lisa Maracani said COVID-19 only aggravated a problem that had existed for years.

"We know that there is a shrinking civic space all around the world. This has been going on for years. But I think the pandemic precipitated this process," Maracani said.

She urged lawmakers to do more to regulate social media, pointing to their responsibility in spreading misinformation.

"We need digital regulations on them, and this can be done by looking at how they operate and their business model and how that algorithm functions because they are driving a certain type of information that is damaging," she told Euronews.

Maracani believes governments have enacted free speech restrictions that were unnecessary.

"We want states to stop going after people sharing information, going after journalists, going after human rights defenders. They really need to step back from that sort of censorship," the researcher said.

Watch the full interview in the video player above

Read the original here:
Amnesty report reveals use of censorship to reduce quality of public information - Euronews

The Future of the Internet: Privacy, Censorship, and Equality – hackernoon.com

Viktor Tron is the founder and team lead of the Ethereum Swarm project. The Swarm project aims to provide an infrastructure for a global digital society. Tron: Decentralized storage is needed for the future of the internet. He also shared insights about the inner workings of Swarm, its strong points, and how the project is crucial for the future of decentralization. Swarm requires payment for the retrieval, upload and storage of content, and allows users to share their data with advertisers in the process of earning income.

Under the guise of "stopping health misinformation," online censorship has increased throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

Big tech companies like Facebook and Google are censoring a wide range of information from being published and shared on social media channels like Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, and Facebook.

Social media companies have accumulated unprecedented power, and their lack of transparency and integrity as gatekeepers of information is worrying.

As we continue to spend more of our time online, either working remotely or consuming content, the need for freedom of expression on the internet is crucial.

At the forefront of the shift from digital supremacy to a more democratized landscape stands Blockchain technology, a crucial element that has impacted countless industries. Cryptocurrencies are not only changing finance, they are also allowing decentralized incentive models to surge, leveling the playing field between large corporations and common people.

I spoke with Viktor Tron, founder and team lead of the Ethereum Swarm project. Having been involved with the Ethereum foundation at its early stages, Viktor kick-started his career early on and is recognized by his peers as a computer programming expert. During the interview, Viktor walks us through his personal journey and professional career. He also shared insights about the inner workings of Swarm, its strong points, and how the project is crucial for the future of the decentralized internet.

Decentralized storage is needed to provide an infrastructure for a global digital society. Lets start from the viewpoint of a future social ideal.

More and more these days, economic activity is based on data. The impact of this economic shift into digitized data and data transmission will increase the demand and prevalence of infrastructure solutions.

In a global digital society, data and content will be persistent and readily available for anyone and at any point in time. Blockchain and other decentralized solutions will ensure data will remain constant.

Another upside of decentralized storage is that data becomes permissionless, accessible to anyone, and uncensorable, meaning no gatekeepers decide which content can or cannot be uploaded to the network.

Infrastructure that tracks the origins and aggregation of data is also crucial for the future of a global digital society. Decentralized systems, like the one Swarm is building, are ideal and provide all the necessary requirements for this kind of society. But in order to understand a little better, lets take a step back.

Since the early rise of the internet, it became clear that there was a huge demand for the democratization of content and free flow of information. Before that, publishing content was a huge bottleneck, as there were several intermediaries and restrictions one would have to go through.

The same that happened with content and data is now happening in the world of finance.

Thanks to the blockchain, the bottleneck for transacting value has been severely diminished by cutting out banking institutions and other middlemen.

The problem was, as access to publishing was open to anyone, the prevalent server-client infrastructure made it impossible for content creators to scale. Nowadays, big corporations have made scaling possible through solutions like cloud storage.

Also, the content publication is somehow left void if the publisher does not provide easy access to consumers. In order to be discovered, data must be searchable and present in diverse platforms, including search engines, social media channels, and content aggregators.

Unified service companies like Google provide both the infrastructure and platform services, handling both the storage and distribution of data all in one place. However, a big problem arose when these large unified companies, like Facebook, started to own users' data.

In the Web 2.0 phase, several big tech companies realized that user profiling, together with tracking online behavior, provided a way more lucrative value proposition than selling the platform features.

One of Swarms strongest propositions and selling points is that it puts the settlement and accounting of data back in the base layer infrastructure, where it belongs originally. To put in less technical terms, Swarm requires payment for the retrieval, upload, and storage of content.

Swarm will also allow users to share their data with advertisers directly, earning income in the process. The cost of these services is settled in a transparent way.

It is also important to mention that decentralization systems are superior in many ways. It makes the components of the system homogenous and thus easily replaceable. In turn, centralized systems have several bottleneck issues and are vulnerable to censorship, server downtimes, and single points of failure.

I would have to say that if there is mass adoption of Swarm, it's a great indicator that there arent any major problems. Instead, I believe Swarms toughest challenges will be faced on the way towards reaching mass adoption.

The largest hurdle will be educating people on why they should pay for content they are currently getting for free. Users will first need to be convinced about the advantages of Swarm. Alternatively, decentralized systems which are advertisement-based can help users have access to content for free as long as they share their data.

Of course, there are other challenges as well. The project is still in its infancy, and we are currently faced with scalability issues, which, until solved, will prevent the mass adoption of Swarm. We must make gradual progress, reaching new developers and creating new tools for users.

A: I usually say what sets Swarm apart from Filecoin, for example, is twofold. The first is that, in Swam, the storage model is directly distributed.

In systems like BitTorrent and IPFS, users become part of the network by sharing whatever content is on their hard drives, which will be made available for anyone to download.

In Swarm, however, users store only the data that the network tells them to. When you open your storage, specific tasks are assigned to you and you must serve chunks of data belonging to your neighborhood. In other words, you become a node operator and take responsibility for a partition of the network.

Users can also contribute to the network by sharing hard drive space for forwarding messages or sharing bandwidth. Users are always compensated for any contribution they make to the network, receiving tokens in the process.

The financial incentive is designed to convince more people to join the network. And once more and more people join a decentralized network as contributors, it becomes more resilient and cheaper to use.

The second reason Swarm is different is that it is a much stronger affiliation towards confidentiality, which allows for anonymous browsing and very strong messaging and privacy features.

They will only get paid for uploading content that users want to see and access. The incentive system also provides a fair distribution of storage revenue for contributors, balancing itself through automatic price setting and careful incentivization. Prices change according to supply and demand.

Swarms vision is to provide a comprehensive backend for the decentralized web. To give all the tools from the server-side, thus giving programmers all the components necessary to create interactive applications, such as decentralized database banking and data aggregation.

Thats a funny question because I was initially involved in the early-stage development of Ethereum. Swarm is at the forefront right now, but it started quite a while ago, just like Ethereum.

The choice to use Ethereum was due to the fact that there were no other viable options back when Swarm started. However, I still consider Ethereum my blockchain of choice and the most complete smart contract ecosystem.

Swarm actually started as a subproject of the Ethereum foundation, but we have become independent since then. In its conceptual structure, Swarm is blockchain agnostic. This means that Swarm can be implemented into any network, and our development team has plans to integrate cross-chain compatibility into our incentivization structure.

However, at this current stage, Swarm can not function without Ethereum. The code was written to be compatible with Ethereum, and significant changes would be needed in order to function without it.

There is definitely long-term viability of adopting other networks. Especially if these other networks support similar language or EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine), which makes the process of translating code much easier.

An important thing to note is that having long-term storage is, most of the time, a real pain in the ass for token volatility. Storage services are negotiated and placed into contracts, meaning that both parties commit to a specific price beforehand.

The contracts then require users and operators to have a good model that carefully calculates the price of storage years into the future. If you mispredict the future, it can cost you.

However, Swarm has an automatic price mechanism so users wont need to worry so much about the volatility of BZZ. In other words, the network is responsive to price changes and the price of storage services is kept low due to the competitive landscape.

The two can co-exist and complement each other. Some services are better suited for centralized systems while others are a perfect fit for decentralized infrastructures like the blockchain.

Certain server base solutions will remain in use due to being technologically superior in certain aspects. But in the future, storage will no longer be dependent on any companies, but rather on the incentive system that keeps decentralized networks running.

Lets look at the example of flight aggregators like Momondo and Skyscanner. This type of business model can actually benefit from leveraging both centralized and decentralized systems.

By having flight aggregators on Swarm, users will be able to transparently verify the authenticity of any flight offer. The system will be trustless, meaning users wont have to worry about the reputation of the traveling agencies.

However, some of these services may suffer from latency challenges due to the nature of redundant storage. Therefore, in order to not compromise the speed of the services, flight aggregators might still elect to use centralized solutions in conjunction with blockchain technology.

Generally say that its not worth making distinctions between these solutions. Usually, the perceived stability and resilience of the individual projects are what count the most. However, long-term aspirations are also important.

Our modular solution is meant to make Swarm viable in the long term. It also makes work easier to coordinate, facilitating the creation of much more complex features.

Its also worth mentioning that web 3.0 is a paradigm. Its currently in a position equal to most 2.0 solutions, which will assist Swarm and promote decentralization.

As for the features that set Swarm aside, these include being a full cloud solution, having strong privacy features and a solid incentive system, which takes care of prices automatically through supply and demand.

In a way, companies are also people. So, Im not sure I agree with this distinction, especially since the premise behind decentralized systems is to break down barriers of entry and any type of discrepancy between network participants.

Of course, Swarm is built with end-users in mind, be it companies or individuals. However, since Swarm is a base layer infrastructure, built with a large focus on fair and incentivized data distribution, its main target group is developers.

Its hard to say when my professional career started. I believe in personal integrity, in my life, there isnt much separation between work and non-work activities.

In other words, the lines between the personal and professional have become blurred. I also share the opinion that its inefficient to make strong distinctions between work and life, and people who do that usually do not enjoy their work.

Years later I started to get heavily involved with the study of mathematics and linguistics, which led to aspirations of becoming a teacher. I then started a career in linguistics research and moved more and more to natural language processing and speech technology. I had the privilege of making contributions to Siri and Swipe.

Afterward, I gradually shifted towards being more of a computer guy. I started working as a programmer for several projects, including a semantic web-based portal for the BBC.

I then got involved in crypto, and it didnt take for me to get fully immersed. When I discovered Ethereum I was completely blown away, which ultimately led me to drop everything else to become the first paid employee of the Ethereum foundation.

Within the foundation, Swarm emerged as a promising project, part of the holy trinity that aimed to completely decentralize the internet. The holy trinity included Ethereum, as the CPU, Swarm, as the hard drive for storing data, and Whisper, as the decentralized messaging protocol.

As time passed, Whisper started to lose relevance and Swarm took its place. Expanding its mission to offer a complete blockchain-based solution, Swarm allows interactive global applications to run in the decentralized web.

Since Swarm parted ways from the Ethereum foundation, it has grown immensely. We now have between 40 to 50 paid employees and contributors. Its worth mentioning that Swarm is not just my idea. Its father is Daniel Nagy, who is a long time friend of mine and colleague since the beginnings of my career in the Ethereum foundation.

I have been working on Swarm 24/7 for the last 7 years. I am extremely pleased with the release of mainnet 1.2, as it represents one of the greatest achievements in my career.

If we take the whole decentralized paradigm into account, Swarm can be a major social impactor.

Todays trend is basically to achieve global free data. A global planetary consciousness where there is unimpeded and uncensorable interaction between people. I trust that any voluntary and informed transaction between individuals will lead to value creation. Thus, by maximizing interaction between people we are, in fact, contributing to a better world.

Therefore, any infrastructure solution that prevents obstacles to interaction, be it impeding regulation, intermediaries, or monopolistic corporations, will be highly beneficial for humanity. I believe platforms like Swarm, which breaks down the barriers for social interaction and value creation, are the next evolutionary step after the internet provided free access to information.

Now it's the time to have coordination, free economic interaction, and consensual standards to emerge. I believe decentralized solutions can help bring a new era of prosperity, and thats why I am optimistic about the future.

The author does not have any vested interest in the projects mentioned above.

The opinions in this article belong to the author alone. Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice. Please conduct your own thorough research before making any investment decisions.

Related Stories

Create your free account to unlock your custom reading experience.

View post:
The Future of the Internet: Privacy, Censorship, and Equality - hackernoon.com

Censorship in the time of Duterte – Vera Files – Vera Files

(Thumbnail photo credit: The Philippine Daily Inquirer)

National Artist Francisco Sionil Jose disses Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa and says there is no censorship in the time of Duterte. Jose has been making loquacious claims lately without basis (like when he said no media station was closed by Duterte). But I have a story to tell from the first-person perspective. The Philippine Daily Inquirer had censored me.

Ten opinion columns of mine never saw print in the Inquirer online edition, even though they were published in the broadsheet edition. When one is published in print but not online, it means the article cannot be shared digitally in social media, which had become the most common way of ensuring the widest-possible readership.

One can only understand the reason behind the censorship: political umbrage. It was used as a tool to prevent criticism against influential political figures.

For sure, there were alternative platforms to share the censored article online. To the consternation perhaps of Inquirer.net, friends and colleagues in the Inquirer Opinion page made sure I had the printed article shared in social media.

Even as the censorship was effectively challenged by the articles posting in in social media, Inquirer.net never cared. Two weeks later, another article was censored, and so forth and so on. The pattern was predictable. It was designed for one to break down and stop writing.

In the beginning, one would think it was simply clerical error. One, of course, seeks recourse from the opinion editor. The opinion editor was new and had accepted that position despite not having a personality of approachability (Dont ask me because that's beyond my pay grade).

Before the chairman of the board could compose a coherent answer for the opinion editor to relay to me, the papers insiders had already given me, albeit secretly, the reason: Inquirer.net had a standing editorial policy not to publish anything unfavorable to Bongbong Marcos and Bong Go. The policy apparently affected even news stories which had to show a favorable slant. In fact, demoralization was brewing among the online news staff. The Inquirer has more than a dozen opinion writers. Of all writers, why was I singled out? You do not censor big-time names; otherwise, hell will be raised. How do you serially censor Ambeth Ocampo or former Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio or former cabinet secretary Winnie Monsod?

Recall that Duterte was angry at the Prietos of the Inquirer. This was his way of threatening the Inquirer that, under its revered slogan of balanced news, fearless views, was a known administration critic. Many in the paper had rude awakenings.

So what was the official line of the Inquirer management about the censorship? It was fake news at its worst. It said Inquirer.net was a separate company (yet was using the same brand and the same livery) that had its own set of editorial policies. Prior to Duterte, there were no such things as separate companies (Inquirer the paper, Inquirer.net, Radyo Inquirer, etc.).

The Inquirer had joined the era of fake news by making a convenient lie about why it was censoring opinion articles. If the paper and the online edition were two separate companies, then that means one can criticize the other. And that is exactly the experiment I chose to do: say outright that the Inquirer had censored my articles. The next day, the opinion editor who once said his pay grade was low gave me my ouster notice. I had expected it. I can answer for myself. But Inquirer, until today, cannot answer for itself.

For many of us who lived through the Marcos regime, the Inquirer was a gilded pillar of strength. We have lost touch with reality when we continue to think of it in the same way.

It was only important for it to survive the business onslaught of Duterte. As to press freedom, the Inquirer is no longer the vanguard it used to be.

The views in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of VERA Files.

See original here:
Censorship in the time of Duterte - Vera Files - Vera Files

Censorship by PIO – Editor And Publisher Magazine

Alisa Cromer | for Editor & Publisher

Ask any journalist what makes their blood pressure go up on deadline. It is being routed to a public affairs office without getting the interview, missing a deadline, or just getting a pre-screened department-organized message. Theres no opportunity for follow-up questions or even an off-the-record conversation.

Lately, the public and even local reporters who have not covered a Washington, D.C. beat are unaware of how restricted access has become at the federal level.

District journalists are no longer allowed into federal buildings without an escort and appointment. It is assumed that every interview will be coordinated through public affairs representatives, who are political appointees. If the public information officer (PIO) is not interested in a story or the reporter, they ignore their inquiries or slow-roll it so that the reporter misses the deadline. Its now common practice for PIOs to join calls and monitor live interviews.

And then there are the gag orders, implied or by memo, so federal government employees cannot talk directly to the press without imperiling their career.

These practices are now deeply embedded into government culture and getting worse every year, leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) told E&P during a recent vodcast on the topic. SPJ, a group with 6,000 members, calls it censorship by PIO. Its such a bane that the association created an entire web page dedicated to the issue.

In July 2021, SPJ and 24 more journalists' associations wrote a letter to the White House with specific demands: To be allowed direct contact with sources, access to federal buildings, and that requests for interviews be granted.

At the local level, access to officials and information is less controlled; however, dozens of police departments and state agencies have explicit and implicit gag orders preventing employees from talking to the press, according to new research by the Brechner Center.

Science reporting has also been at the heart of the national controversy, Matthew T. Hall, opinion editor at The San Diego Union-Tribune., told E&P. This was especially true during the Trump administration, when the pandemic surged and the CDC was late with information. Last year, The Washington Post decried its gag order to prevent employees from talking, surfaced by a Freedom of Information Act request after a lawsuit.

The Biden administration promised openness, but by July 2021, after just six months in office, the EPA faced its first stress test and folded. When whistleblowers reported a rubber-stamping of toxic chemicals, the chief of staff in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Allison Pierce, sent a memo reminding employees not to talk to the media without going through public affairs.

Tim Wheeler, chair of the Society of Environmental Journalists Freedom of Information Task Forcechair of the and an editor at the Chesapeake Bay Journal, says none of this is shocking nor new.

An army of PIOs is managing the information, he said. You are getting your information filtered as often as not, or they dont get back to you at all.

March 2021 Let the Sunshine In webinar

Just after the Biden administration settled in, Wheeler hosted a webinar with the pithy title, Let the Sunshine In. Will EPA reopen its doors to the press? for SEJ members to meet the new office of public affairs at the Environmental Protection Agency.

He started by talking about Bidens promised openness and the executive order to restore scientific transparency. How do you intend to restore transparency? Does that include the ability for reporters to interview staff and get a timely start on answers to questions?

Lyndsay Hamilton, enthusiastic, whip-smart and just two months on the job as associate administrator for the office, took the lead. Nick Conger, the EPAs press secretary, was playing back-up.

Hamilton said her goal is a positive, transparent relationship. She views media relations as a service we provide ... We are committed to sharing timely, accurate information to the best of our ability ... it is your job to always ask for more. If we cant (get you what you need), dont be afraid to ask about the why.

Conger started with, Can we just say happy Sunshine Week? He talked about empowering regional executives to answer media questions but still coordinated with public affairs.

Next question.

Wheeler asked, There was a time when reporters did not have to go through a PIO for permission or have minders present at the interview. Can we go back to that, and if not, why not?

Hamilton responded, Im not going to debate the word minders with you, and explained that staffers sit in on interviews to be helpful. She said the role of media relations is to make sure journalists are connected to the right source, that sources are comfortable talking to media, to let conversations play out, and to follow up on items we need to do. Accuracy is another issue.

Besides, she has allowed interviews without a staffer listening in. They are not on every call.

Wheeler had brought some messages from environmental journalists who could not attend. One wrote that she was so excited about getting a thorough response by email from a scientist that she was giddy. Three more said that they never got their requested interview. Two were regional reporters, but a district reporter said he had not had an on-the-record interview with someone at the EPA since the Obama administration.

Hamilton responded that the new EPA would strive to do better. She gave out her and Congors emails as go-tos in case of a problem, noting that theirs is still a small team of political appointees.

There may be other reasons for no response. For example, scientists may not want to talk, and We dont require them to. We are certainly straining to do our best We might miss an email here and there.

Wheeler had another question, The two scientists recently talked to me on the record without coordinating (with your office). Did they violate EPA policy?

Well, Im not going to track them down unless you want me to, Hamilton answered. We do ask (them) to coordinate with public affairs, but Im glad you got the information.

What if a scientist is speaking at a scientific conference, and I approach them afterward, during a break. Are they allowed to talk to me? he asked.

Hamilton stuttered a bit. Sure, I mean. Absolutely. Sure. I mean, they are in a public forum already. Yeah, absolutely.

Well, Wheeler noted, Ive seen a PR official swoop into the conversation in some instances ... Just so you know.

Hamilton added that she does this, too. As the PR person on site, I do sometimes join a conversation to know who the reporter is, where they are from We do like to know what people are saying about the agency.

What about the Executive Order that Biden signed 24 hours into his presidency, directing agencies to review scientific integrity practices and identify more effective ways of interacting with the media.

Did he mean going through a spokesperson? asked Wheeler.

Not sure we have a full answer, Hamilton said. We will soon.

Todays censorship

Censorship by PIO is so insidious in part because the media have quietly gone along. No reporters have faced arrest for pushing back. Stories get published. Even if the information is managed, the job gets done.

We are not printing blank pages, but part of the story is missing, explains Kathryn Foxhall, who covered the medical and science beat, including the CDC, for decades.

It will be correct; probably it will be interesting. It will suffice, but there will be all kinds of things that are not mentioned, like budget, political pressures, differences of opinion within the agency, she said.

Foxhall, who has referred to PIOs as censors, minders, controllers and spies in articles and speaking engagements, was one of the earliest and still one of the fiercest proponents for press access. In September, she was awarded SPJs Wells Memorial Key award for her efforts.

To give an example of how covering Washington changed during her career, she likes to tell a story from the Reagan era, when she could talk to a source unsupervised. She was interviewing a high-level source at the CDC about recent budget cuts just as the AIDS epidemic unfolded.

He was saying, Well make do and blah blah blah, Foxhall recalled. I was trying to get off the phone, when I asked what he would say if he were off the record. He reversed course and absolutely exploded. The story I wrote massively changed, and those changes could have saved lives.

Today, these confidential conversations have been largely eliminated. We now have over 4 million pandemic dead, she said.

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.

So how did this happen?

Foxhall says she first noticed sources redirecting her to official channels in the early 1990s. The newsroom talked about these blocks and what to do about it. There was some eyeball rolling. but you could still get around it with some people skills, she said. Over the years, it got tighter and tighter.

Another reason is the way governments are organized. Department heads are political appointees, while the staff, scientists and lower-level public affairs officers are career employees and subject matter experts.

Over time, each presidential administration inserted a growing layer of political appointees of PIOs on top of the careerist departments and started pulling strings, steering coordinating all speech to reporters.

Ironically, Obama was more of a micromanager of information released by lower-profile federal agencies than Trump. Despite his rhetoric, Trump was primarily interested in controlling departments involved in high-profile news stories and essentially left the lower-profile departments alone, sources say.

With Biden, micro-management has returned. PIOs, who are political appointees, have started to weigh in on every piece of information and interview that goes out, including which reporters and news outlets get access, and rewriting press releases with political messages in mind.

It hasnt helped that the news media shed thousands of journalists who migrated over to these expanded public affairs offices.

Wheeler does not blame these former journalists. It is not always the PIO, but the president and governors and people they appoint who control dissent and contraindications, Wheeler said, adding, Some of my best friends are PIOs.

And there are other factors. After 9/11, access to federal buildings was restricted, so credentialed reporters could no longer enter without an appointment and escort. COVID-19 shut down most public meetings and other events that provided face-to-face opportunities for journalists to meet public officials without a chaperone.

To report this story, we contacted eight government PIOs by email. One went off the record, on deep background. One was afraid to talk because she was new. Finally, one said she would get back to me with a time but missed the deadline.

The other PIOs at the CDC, EPA, the Department of Interior, the National Association of Government Communicators, and Health and Human Services had not responded by deadline.

A case to battle restricted access

If the media is going to challenge the culture of restricted access, the battle will probably be fought in the courts.

Frank LoMonte, the First Amendment attorney at the Brechner Center, who has written a white paper on case law as a roadmap for news media to use in the future, feels the courts have favored employees talking about their jobs despite blanket gag orders.

The reality is that the employee always wins. We have dug back as far as we can, and the judges say the gag orders are too broad every time. These are 24 cases and all kinds of judges, he said. The bottom line is that (legally) you cannot enforce a gag order preventing an employee from discussing their work with the news media, he said.

The most important Supreme Court case, United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, circa 1995, only confirmed the legal status on which the lower courts have always agreed.

We know (blanket gag orders) exist. We know they are pervasive across all levels of government. But Im here to tell you its a dead man walking. They are all illegal; they are just waiting for someone to sue, LoMonte said.

Whats missing is the perfect case.

Most plaintiffs in existing case law have been government employees, such as schoolteachers and police officers. However, with the decline of labor unions who supplied the money and the lawyers, these cases dried up.

So today, LoMonte is setting the stage for a media organization to file suit eventually. It just must be the right case to avoid creating a legal precedent that could worsen things.

So what would the perfect case look like?

According to LoMonte, the media should look for a government agency with a blanket gag order policy that is clear and in writing. An employee handbook is better than a mass email. A mass email is better than a series of single ones, and any email is better than a verbal rebuke. The CDC emails, though explosive at the time, he said, did not make the cut.

Asked if hes worried that governments wont just vague up their cultural policies after reading this article thinking here of the EPAs broad guidelines to please coordinate he said not to worry. Plenty of government agencies at the state and local level outline exactly what employees cant say.

His new research has already turned up a couple of dozen illegal policies at police departments, including the NYPD, despite the fact it has already been sued once on the issue and lost. Sixteen state agencies in Georgia also have explicit gag order policies.

His advice to journalists is to start documenting.

Ask the (sources) who were gagged, Did you see a memo? Run it to the ground and document it, he told SPJ attendees on the stage with Foxhall. Get the agency on the record. Where did it come from, who made it?

Another culprit in Censorship by PIO is the media itself.

The press acquiesced, Foxhall contended. Why isnt the news industry fighting the controls? One of the top reasons, in my opinion, is that we need their stuff. Its easier and inexpensive to quote an official source. If the press parrots (an official source), it takes about an hour to write it up. (But) we dont want to discredit our own story by saying how little we know.

She suggested that journalists need to start consistently writing about their access and make it part of the story. Lose the embarrassment that journalists are supposed to know everything, and therefore we cant admit that these people are successfully blocking our newsgathering.

The San Diego chapter of SPJ gives Brick and Window awards once a year to highlight the access issue.

We need to call attention, Matthew T. Hall said. Im hoping someone at the Biden administration watches when this is published and picks up the phone.

Alisa Cromer is the editor of LocalMediaInsider, an online trade journal covering the media industry. She grew up in Washington, D.C.

Visit link:
Censorship by PIO - Editor And Publisher Magazine