News and information to help journalists serve the public and stay safe.
July 27, 2020
TOP STORIES
Join moderator  Michael Days  of the Philadelphia Inquirer,  Libor Jany of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and  Jamiles Lartey of the Marshall Project for a conversation with practical suggestions for “Covering Justice: Reimagining the cops, crime, courts beats.”

Registration is now open  for this program co-hosted by the National Press Club Journalism Institute and the News Leaders Association, on July 31, from 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT. 

The conversation will help journalists and the public understand: 

  • Daily decisions newsrooms could make differently, including the use of suspect descriptions, mug shots or coded language like ‘unarmed black man.’ 
  • Short-term considerations, for example eliminating the crime blotter, explaining how police are funded or what it means to ‘abolish’ or ‘defund’ police.'
  • Long-term questions of who the audience is for justice coverage, whose authority we seek/trust, how we can re-envision routines and what we should be tracking & investigating.
When Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memo that requires all contacts with news reporters to be coordinated through the Pentagon's public affairs office, he highlighted a widespread practice that journalism advocates say restricts information, creates political “spin” and gags policy experts.

The Pentagon is not the only federal department operating under such limitations. In the first days of Donald Trump’s presidency, the administration, worried about mixed messages on climate change and other issues, tightened control of information from government scientists .

Those types of directives precede the Trump administration, but they have greater urgency during a health crisis such as the coronavirus pandemic when access to expert data is crucial to inform the public.

“It's become pretty painfully obvious that elected officials have a vested interest in selectively ‘spinning’ data to convey the impression that they have COVID-19 under control,” said Frank D. LoMonte , a journalism professor at the University of Florida and director of The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information.

“If journalists can't talk to the actual subject-matter experts, then we're all going to be left with unverified and selectively cherry-picked claims that might cause people to make uneducated decisions about their safety.”

LoMonte has written extensively about efforts to silence or control the ability of public employees to speak freely. We reached out to him to learn more about the history and the implications of these forms of information control. 

What do these restrictions mean at a time of dwindling journalists resources, particularly at the local level?

LoMonte : It's less and less possible for news organizations to cultivate the source relationships within government agencies that might get them around restrictive PIO gatekeeping policies. News organizations have been buying out their most senior reporters to save money, and those are the reporters with the deepest network of contacts.

Reporters who used to cover one or two agencies are now covering a dozen, and they just can't spend the time pounding the pavement to meet the rank-and-file employees at all of those agencies while still meeting deadlines and cranking out work. And then you overlay COVID-19 on top of it all, and it's even more challenging to develop a rapport with anyone at an agency other than an official P.R. spokesperson. 

It's really much more important than ever to challenge these agency gag policies and get them off the books, because we can't assume that agencies are all being aggressively covered by experienced, well-sourced reporters anymore. 

It is a maxim of Washington journalism that good reporters avoid press secretaries and public information officers and develop their own reporter-source relationships with government officials in the know. Why is that not adequate?

LoMonte : When people are placed in fear for their jobs, they'll either shut down from speaking entirely or speak only anonymously. It's well-documented that stories full of anonymous sources are regarded as less trustworthy, and the use of anonymous sources has been weaponized by media critics to suggest that stories are fabricated. If the agency's stated policy is that it's a punishable disciplinary offense to get caught speaking to the media without authorization, then journalists will be left with only officially hand-picked sources or anonymous ones. 

Many institutions and organizations in the private and non-profit sector require employees to seek approval before speaking to reporters. Are those efforts at centralizing communications different than when the government does it?

LoMonte : The National Labor Relations Board has been telling employers for decades that they can't enforce categorical gag policies, because that will inhibit people from speaking out about working conditions and safety hazards. The problem is that almost nobody knows this line of NLRB precedent exists, and the penalty for being a violator is generally not much more than being ordered to rewrite the company's policies, which is not exactly a powerful deterrent.

The National Labor Relations Act doesn't cover every workplace — it doesn't cover mom-and-pop local retailers or overtly religious organizations — but where it applies, it outlaws gagging employees from discussing their work with the press and public. So while I think people in government service probably are taking their cues from the private sector, the answer is that the private sector is also breaking the law, and just because the guy in the lane next to you is driving 90 mph doesn't mean it's legal for you to do it, too. 

Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone expresses their views with power and impact. Some voices rise and echo, and others never penetrate the noise that surrounds us. Having an important platform — like the New York Times or L.A. Times — can amplify perspectives. In this program from the National Press Club Journalism Institute, L.A. Times editorial page editor Sewell Chan , L.A. Times columnist Erika Smith , Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones , and New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein will describe:

  • How to make yourself heard 
  • How to work with an editor or writer to hone a point of view 
  • How to pitch (& catch) a column or opinion piece 


Advice from  Jill Geisler ,
Bill Plante Chair in Leadership & Media Integrity, Loyola University Chicago
Freedom Forum Fellow in Women’s Leadership

Here’s a quick leadership check for managers:

  • Find the last five memos you sent to your staff. 
  • Read them over, circling the pronouns “I” and “we.”
  • Look at the proportion of “I”s to “we”s.
  • Look at the context in which you chose to use “I” and “we.”

At first glance, this exercise is an ego check. Are you centering too many messages around yourself, your actions and your ideas? Are you putting people off with a focus on you rather than the team?

But it’s not that simple. Context is key for “I” and “we.”

There are times when “I” is imperative.

“I” is important for stating commitments, for taking responsibility, and certainly for apologizing.

Today, as organizations and their leaders are reckoning with systemic injustice and inequity, “I” statements from leaders are important. They hold people accountable.

Compare these two statements:

  • “I will review the hiring practices that have existed for years on my watch.”
  • “We will review the hiring practices that we’ve used for years.”

Which one sounds more genuine to you? Which sounds like personal accountability? 
Now let’s flip things to show when “I” sounds genuinely egocentric. Compare these two messages:

  • “When I first launched this program, I knew it was going to break ground. I also knew people had doubts. But today, I am happy to share the metrics that prove the wisdom of my wacky idea.”
  • “When we first started work on this program, we knew it was going to break ground. We also knew people had doubts. But today, we’re here to celebrate metrics that prove the wisdom of this wacky idea.”

Which one takes the credit? Which one shares it?

Leaders who are self-confident and emotionally intelligent understand the importance of inclusive communication. You’re already in charge. You have what’s called “ legitimate power ” - derived from your position in the organization. You don’t need to lard your everyday communication with references to yourself. 

But on not-so-ordinary days, when you are sharing controversial decisions or bad news, or taking responsibility for wrongs and apologizing, the first person pronoun should lead the way. 

It’s also front and center for heartfelt personal messages: “I cannot thank you enough for the surprise birthday gifts.” “I’m proud of this team.” And: “I believe in you.” 

“We” and “they,” “everyone” and “us” reflect a genuine focus on the deeds and needs of others. That’s important.

As you write your next memo, remember that people read them through two filters. 

The first is:
“What does this message mean to me?” 

The second is:
“What does this message tell me about my manager?”
Do you qualify as an ally? Join Jill for the next   Freedom Forum Institute Power Shift Project program   on August 20 at 1 p.m. EDT. Registration is now open .
You know exercise can improve your mental health and reduce stress . But making time for regular sweat sessions, especially with erratic work or home circumstances, can be tough. 

Here are some ways to work in workouts you don’t have to schedule. 

  • When appropriate, switch that video call to a walk-and-talk session. Moving during meetings can add to your step count and get you outdoors
  • Try super-short hourly exercises. Micro-workouts vary in time (think three minutes, seven minutes or 10 minutes) but add up through the workday. Added benefits? Increased circulation and a boost of energy.
  • Can’t leave your desk? Try one of these 33 desk-ercises. With names like “The Grim Reamer” and “The Silent Seat Squeeze,” these moves can be performed without leaving your monitor. 

How are you staying active during the pandemic? Share your tips — you could help a fellow journalist. Read on for more self-care tips.
This newsletter is written & edited by the National Press Club Journalism Institute staff: Beth Francesco, Holly Butcher Grant, Jim Kuhnhenn, and Julie Moos. Send us your questions and suggestions for topics to cover.

Get this from a friend? Subscribe , and view the archives .