Media Vows to Pry Open Closed Doors in Washington

By Joe Strupp

 

Published: June 03, 2004 12:01 AM EST

 

NEW YORK Press efforts to thwart government secrecy are moving forward on two fronts as Washington bureau chiefs unite to more aggressively cover federal government attempts to hide information and the head of Associated Press offers plans for a new open government lobbying center in Washington, D.C.

 

"We wanted to raise awareness that this is a growing problem for us," says Andy Alexander, D.C. bureau chief for Cox Newspapers and new chair of the American Society of Newspaper Editors' FOI Committee, who is leading the bureau chiefs' effort. "We have a special obligation to be more aware of threats to public information."

 

Alexander's comments followed his participation in a May 3 luncheon at the National Press Club that included speakers from the First Amendment Center, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the new Coalition of Journalists for Open Government. Nineteen Washington bureau chiefs attended and agreed to boost their efforts to cover more issues related to government secrecy.

 

"It was an interesting discussion and out of it was an agreement that we all need to write more about secrecy," says Alexander, who created a new government secrecy beat in his office three months ago. "We have two people writing about it as part of their responsibilities."

 

While the bureau chiefs did not formulate a specific plan or agenda, the group agreed to put more resources on coverage of federal government attempts to keep information from the public, with an emphasis on how that affects readers, not just the press.

 

"The real issue is telling our readers what it is they are not getting," says Vickie Walton-James, Chicago Tribune Washington bureau chief. "We need to pay attention to this, and not just when a big case pops up."

 

For Tom DeFrank, who began covering Washington as a Newsweek correspondent 36 years ago and now heads the New York Daily News bureau, the need for prying open government doors has never been greater. "This administration is the most aggressively unhelpful that I have ever covered, and that goes back to Nixon," he says. "This White House and administration are far more secretive than the Nixon crowd."

 

Peter Copeland, Washington bureau chief of Scripps Howard News Service, says he plans to ratchet up the privacy beat even more. "It started as a beat concerning privacy aspects of the Internet, but has evolved into secrecy related to terrorism," he explains.

 

Bureau chiefs also are urging their reporters to get more information on the record and stop allowing federal officials to hide behind the mask of anonymity. "We need to push for more transparency," says Alexander, adding that reporters too often will allow a high-ranking official, like National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice or a cabinet member, to brief them behind the mask of a vague attribution. Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times bureau chief since 1983, said such a practice must be challenged more. "It is happening more frequently in this administration," he said. "They speak less on the record than their predecessors." [ :anon ]

 

Copeland is pushing his staff to get more information through public records instead of nameless sources. "Get documents or letters or testimony on the record," he says.

 

At the same time, reporters are being trained to look for secrecy abuses in government and bring any denial of access to their bosses for review. "Staffers must let us know when they run into efforts to make things secret that shouldn't be," says David Cook, bureau chief for The Christian Science Monitor. "We can find ways to cover that."

 

AP President and CEO Tom Curley, meanwhile, unveiled a plan on May 7 for a "media advocacy center" to lobby for open government in Washington. "The government is pushing hard for secrecy," Curley said in a speech announcing the plan. "We must push back equally hard for openness. I think it is time to consider establishment of a focused lobbying effort in Washington ... The essence of the FOI Act is that government information is open and accessible to the public unless there is a very good reason to keep it secret."

 

But in a conversation with E&P, the AP chief stopped short of offering any detailed plans for the center, saying he wanted to bring together various journalism advocacy groups first to discuss the need. Among the center's efforts, however, may be to push for a federal reporters' shield law.

 

LINK

 

I hope they keep it up and never forget to do it under any presidency.

Uh oh, the media isnt doing everything the Bush administration wants it to do. Time to label it as being "liberal."

Uh oh, the media isnt doing everything the Bush administration wants it to do. Time to label it as being "liberal."

:lol Yeah... All those liberal assess in FAUX News! OMG we may actually hear the truth some time?

I don't think The Media is waking up because whatever The Conservatives will say, their was no nor ever will be a bias except of course if you turn over to Fox.

 

The great thing, I love is the fact that their were more pro bush and less anti bush stories than Gore run during 00 and yet their's still a "bias"

Somebody did a survey and a majority of reporters called themselves liberals if that means anything to you. It was a pretty big difference between the percent that called themselves liberals and those that called themselves conservatives. Whereas in the general population more people call themselves conservatives.

Brokaw, Jenniongs, and Rather are liberal, thus their newscats are as well. With CBS being the most.

Somebody did a survey and a majority of reporters called themselves liberals if that means anything to you. It was a pretty big difference between the percent that called themselves liberals and those that called themselves conservatives. Whereas in the general population more people call themselves conservatives.

What does that mean? Nothing,

 

Who are the ones who grant stories to be shown and direct what attention they will get, Editors! Most editors also happen to be more conservative than Liberal.

 

Also point to the fact that NBC, the most watched network for Nightly News is owned by GE.

Somebody did a survey and a majority of reporters called themselves liberals if that means anything to you. It was a pretty big difference between the percent that called themselves liberals and those that called themselves conservatives. Whereas in the general population more people call themselves conservatives.

ahmmm Maybe the "reporters" are "liberal" but how about the people who actually run the media and make the decisions on what they can report?

 

Now please run me a list of "liberal" anchors and reporters that are "liberal". I have a list of Neocon, Bush worshipers, want me to put it up and see how "liberal" your media is????

Brokaw, Jenniongs, and Rather are liberal, thus their newscats are as well. With CBS being the most.

Agreed. Every time I watch World News Tonight... they have very clever ways of slipping words in to their reports, and to some of us who (God forbid) don't support the liberal agenda (convenience), it's painfully obvious who's in control of the media.

Glad to see everyone's beginning to wake up to how bad this administration really is.

Glad to see everyone's beginning to wake up to how bad this administration really is.

perhaps it's just a bad time to be an administration?

Brokaw, Jenniongs, and Rather are liberal, thus their newscats are as well. With CBS being the most.

Agreed. Every time I watch World News Tonight... they have very clever ways of slipping words in to their reports, and to some of us who (God forbid) don't support the liberal agenda (convenience), it's painfully obvious who's in control of the media. :banghead ,

 

CF, who are the ones who control what is said and what stories are run on the air?

 

Who has more say, The Editor's or The Reporters.

 

Yeah, it's The Editor's who in a survey were deemed to lean more conservative. Now let's go over the facts...

 

Editor's of these show's decide what and where things will go on a show, their main goal is to be fair. They lean towards The Conservative Side and their job is to be fair, that's two big things that would hurt any reporter trying to make it a more liberal program. Maybe because Wolf Blitzer has never blown up an abortion clinic, he's a liberal but no I think it's called fair journalism.

 

Of course your going to find stuff that may be anti-conservative because that's what your looking for. Go to any independent media group and it is a fact that in The 2000 election, Bush had more stories deemed favorable for him. I can say that CNN is conservative because they put Ann Coulter on but that's bs to say that because they try to bring both sides to the table.

 

This whole bias thing has gotten way out of hand, in Bernie Goldberg's book Bias most of it's taken out of context and flat out lies but no Conservative is complaining.

 

Another thing about The mainstream media, almost if not all are owned by conservative companies, GE being the biggest yet these conservative's are actually putting liberal spin on everything just for the hell of it, right?

This whole bias thing has gotten way out of hand

That's about all I can agree with you about

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

Good article written about the Pew study that NCmarlin refers to:

 

Pew Study: Journalists and Liberal Bias

 

Web Extra June 2, 2004 -- A recent study by the Pew Center for the Public and the Press looked at the state of journalism, journalists and journalistic attitudes.

 

Details of the study can be found at the Pew Web site (See link in Web Resources below). It surveyed 547 journalists in broadcasting and print. It also looks at attitudes comparing journalists who work in local newsrooms and those who work for national media. The survey replicated a similar study done in 1995.

 

More Pessimistic

 

Overall, the poll shows that journalists are more pessimistic than ever about the state of the profession. Their confidence in their management is low and their fears are high about the commercial pressures on journalism.

 

This is a study that is bound to have some serious consequences for American journalism in large measure because of one aspect of the poll: the political leanings of the journalists who responded to the survey.

 

Confirmation for Conservatives

 

It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general.

 

This is only a small portion of the study. But it is likely to follow news organizations around for the rest of the political year like Marley's ghost. For some, Bush's rise or fall in November will be inextricably linked to this poll.

 

And that leads to some serious concerns about the Pew poll as well.

 

First, the poll never asks exactly how personal political attitudes impact on the ability of journalists to do their job. In that sense, I think the poll may be a disservice. It implies -- but never explains how or if bias has an impact on journalism. The poll simply assumes -- as conservatives constantly point out -- that bias makes its way into the journalism.

 

What About Management Politics?

 

More importantly in my opinion, the poll never asks about the political leanings of the media owners, publishers and upper management of news organizations. It is arguable that their politics are more influential than their employees in choosing the direction of a news organization.

 

This poll seems to me to be an example of how to keep journalists on the defensive in an election year. That may not have been the intention of whoever commissioned this study. But it certainly will be an outcome -- unintended or otherwise.

 

So if there is tough reporting around the Bush campaign, critics will say it must be because of the inherent liberal bias as cited in the Pew poll. If the media is tough on the Kerry campaign it may be viewed as an overcompensation to show that the media isn't as liberal as the Pew poll indicated.

 

Creeping Commercialism

 

The poll also points out the increasing concerns of journalists who see their ability to do their jobs in a professional way constantly undermined by encroaching commercialism.

 

This is a concern for all journalists, even for NPR -- a not-for-profit media outlet.

 

For NPR, the sense of creeping commercialism remains an important concern for many listeners who resent the tone and the origins of some of the underwriting messages on public radio. Underwriting messages on NPR are as they have always been -- a maximum of two minutes per hour. However listeners increasingly say they perceive the messages to be more about commercial ventures than before.

 

Inside NPR, some nervous journalists worry that competitive pressures may inadvertently dull the harder edge of journalistic inquiry.

 

'Muzzling Sheep'

 

I hope that Pew -- a highly respected polling organization -- would try again. A better poll would be to look more deeply into how journalistic checks and balances work: Do editors find that they are dealing with bias more than they used to? Do reporters and editors sense more or less pressure to deal with the campaigns in a certain way than they did in 2000? How does commercialism impact on the quality of reporting? Where does that pressure come from? Self-censorship or managerial fiat? Do readers, viewers and listeners sense a reticence on the part of journalists to go after the story in a post-Sept. 11 political environment? Are our European colleagues correct when they say that the American media has been cowed? (A British politician recently remarked that it wasn't necessary to muzzle Fleet Street: "You don't have to muzzle sheep.")

 

There is much that can be pointed to as examples of inherent bias in the media -- including NPR.

 

The media -- as a class -- tends to be remarkably homogeneous. As an NPR editor pointed out to me recently, "How many of our journalists have ever operated a business?" The poll indirectly points to the need for more diversity in our newsrooms -- both intellectual and cultural.

 

These are important questions that Pew could have asked, but didn't. My concern is whether this poll may create an environment of "prior restraint" by inhibiting journalists from asking the tougher questions.

 

The Adversarial Role of the Media

 

This poll may have been done correctly, but in this one aspect -- questioning the professionalism of journalists -- the result will be a disservice to American journalists and journalism. In order to avoid the "liberal bias" accusation, some journalists might feel there is safety in pack journalism and that is likely to have a chilling effect on tough, independent journalism.

 

The media and its management have an obligation to maintain a skeptical and adversarial role to whatever party is in power. This poll could discourage that by implying that journalists will always let their personal politics trump their professional obligations.

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast.

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused

 

Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be.

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused

 

Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be. Cut the patronizing. That attitude only pisses people off. I'm sorry we aren't as "enlightened" as you so to believe that Bush = Evil.

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused

 

Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be. Cut the patronizing. That attitude only pisses people off. I'm sorry we aren't as "enlightened" as you so to believe that Bush = Evil. In my world, there is no "good" Vs. "evil"... Bush is not "evil" he is just a liar who is playing with all of us and the future of this country.

 

Stand for the right thing once in your life... Patronizing? I don't patronize, I express my opinion and when I say what I say, I really feel that way, it is sad man, really sad.

The media has more access to the goings-on in the Government than it has ever had before.

 

How about the media actually quits whining, does their job and STFU.

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

An endorsment is no indicatior of overall political stance, its just a snapshot in time not an indicator of a trend.

 

By making the leap of logic you have, you presume Gore represents all thing Dem and Bush represents all things Rep. This is plainly not true. Would you then like to prove that The People in charge of the actual media(editors and publishers) are liberal, rather than just well I know what I see in the news?

Brokaw, Jenniongs, and Rather are liberal, thus their newscats are as well. With CBS being the most.

Agreed. Every time I watch World News Tonight... they have very clever ways of slipping words in to their reports, and to some of us who (God forbid) don't support the liberal agenda (convenience), it's painfully obvious who's in control of the media. This makes you all sound very young.

 

If you listen to the media during ANY PRESIDENCY, you will hear them question government. If it's being liberal, so be it. A media who takes government's word as 100% truth is not the media I want.

 

See, if Clinton was in the White House, I'm certain we wouldn't have all this media uproar over the prisons in Abu Ghraib, right? Or if we were led into a war that roughly half the country no longer supported I'm sure the media wouldn't be hounding the president constantly about it because he's a democratic president, right?

 

Get a freaking clue.

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused

 

Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be. Cut the patronizing. That attitude only pisses people off. I'm sorry we aren't as "enlightened" as you so to believe that Bush = Evil. In my world, there is no "good" Vs. "evil"... Bush is not "evil" he is just a liar who is playing with all of us and the future of this country.

 

Stand for the right thing once in your life... Patronizing? I don't patronize, I express my opinion and when I say what I say, I really feel that way, it is sad man, really sad. THAT RIGHT THERE IS PATRONIZING. "Aww geez, I'm sorry. I can't help it if I want to stand up to the murderous liar Bush, although I never said he was evil. I'm really sorry that you can't see that, I guess you have been brainwashed too much. Geez. That must suck"

Tonyi, you wanted that info...

 

In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore.

 

Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though.

The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused

 

Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be. Cut the patronizing. That attitude only pisses people off. I'm sorry we aren't as "enlightened" as you so to believe that Bush = Evil. In my world, there is no "good" Vs. "evil"... Bush is not "evil" he is just a liar who is playing with all of us and the future of this country.

 

Stand for the right thing once in your life... Patronizing? I don't patronize, I express my opinion and when I say what I say, I really feel that way, it is sad man, really sad. THAT RIGHT THERE IS PATRONIZING. "Aww geez, I'm sorry. I can't help it if I want to stand up to the murderous liar Bush, although I never said he was evil. I'm really sorry that you can't see that, I guess you have been brainwashed too much. Geez. That must suck" Grow up and then talk to me... Now that is patronizing. :cool