creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
15 Aug 2014
Is Corruption a Constitutional Right?

Wall Street is one of the biggest sources of funding for presidential campaigns, and many of the Republican Party'… Read More.

8 Aug 2014
Juking the Job Stats

A decade ago, as the United States hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs, the federal government considered … Read More.

1 Aug 2014
Clinton vs. Warren: Big Differences, Despite Claims to the Contrary

Hillary Clinton's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of … Read More.

Journalists on the Government's Blacklist

Comment

As states move to hide details of government deals with Wall Street, and as politicians come up with new arguments to defend secrecy, a study released earlier this month revealed that many government information officers block specific journalists they don't like from accessing information. The news comes as 47 federal inspectors general sent a letter to lawmakers criticizing "serious limitations on access to records" that they say have "impeded" their oversight work.

The data about public information officers was compiled over the past few years by Kennesaw State University professor Dr. Carolyn Carlson. Her surveys found that 4 in 10 public information officers say "there are specific reporters they will not allow their staff to talk to due to problems with their stories in the past."

"That horrified us that so many would do that," Carlson told the Columbia Journalism Review, which reported on her presentation at the July conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

Carlson has conducted surveys of journalists and public information officers since 2012. In her most recent survey of 445 working journalists, four out of five reported that "their interviews must be approved" by government information officers, and "more than half of the reporters said they had actually been prohibited from interviewing [government] employees at least some of the time by public information officers."

In recent years, there have been signs that the federal government is reducing the flow of public information. Reason Magazine has reported a 114 percent increase in Freedom of Information Act rejections by the Drug Enforcement Agency since President Obama took office. The National Security Agency has also issued blanket rejections of FOIA requests about its metadata program. And the Associated Press reported earlier this year that in 2013, "the government cited national security to withhold information a record 8,496 times — a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama's first year."

Those revelations foreshadowed a recent letter from more than half of the government's inspectors general saying that federal agencies' move to hide information from them represents a "potentially serious challenge to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner."

In that letter, the inspectors general assert that agencies are saying information is "privileged" and therefore must be kept secret.

That is one of many increasingly creative rationales that public officials are now citing as reason to keep government information secret.

In Chicago, for example, officials in Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration rejected a request for documents about an opaque $1.7 billion fund that is often used for corporate subsidies, some of which have flowed to the mayor's political donors. In a letter explaining the rejection, the officials said it would take too much staff time to compile the data and that therefore the request was "unduly burdensome."

Likewise in Rhode Island, Democratic State Treasurer Gina Raimondo rejected a newspaper request for information about the state's hedge fund contracts on the grounds that she wanted fund managers to "keep this information confidential to help preserve the productivity of their staff and to minimize attention around their own compensation."

That denial was one of many similar rejections from states seeking to keep the details of their Wall Street deals secret.

Carlson's polls from 2014 show that three-quarters of journalists surveyed now agree that "the public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers agencies are imposing on journalists' reporting practices."

That's the whole point of government secrecy, of course — and the ramifications are predictable. In an information vacuum, the public is being systematically divorced from public policy, which is exactly what too many elected officials want.

David Sirota is a senior writer at the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Great article. I knew a lot of this stuff was going on, but I haven't heard of a lot of these example. This really is a serious problem. Government works for us and we have a right to know what its doing with our money. Obama's open and transparient government promise is a washed up joke at this point. He is the establishment, he wants people in the dark. Don't forget to add the 28 pages of redacted 9/11 report to the list.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:42 AM
Investigative journalism is under attack from so many fronts. What's really amazing is that there are still any journalists left to survey.

This is one of the few horrible practices that the Obama Administration has carried over and expanded from the Bush Administration before him. That's the problem with letting things like this go on for so long. When there is no accountability the abuse of power continues to grow because those in power know they will get away with it. If only there had been more of an outcry during the Bush Administration. But the Democrats were powerless and feckless, the corporate media looked the other way, right-wing media cheered Bush on, liberal media was practically non-existent, and those on the right who claimed to be against government secrecy and abuse of power were silent. I only hope (but don't expect) that now that there is a “Democrat” in the White House the outcry will be loud enough to be taken seriously (except that the right-wing media is too busy pushing fake stories – Vacation-Gate! Benghazi! IRS! Birth Certificate! – to actually focus on a serious issue like this, and some Democrats are sure to rally around Obama like they always do putting party over principal).
Comment: #2
Posted by: A Smith
Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:22 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 28 Aug 2014
Jill Lawrence
Jill LawrenceUpdated 28 Aug 2014
Sileo
Tom SileoUpdated 28 Aug 2014

17 Oct 2008 Signs of an Earthquake In Oregon

26 Jun 2009 Getting Off the Grid

8 Feb 2013 The Sports Tax