Robert Lee Hotz termed the relationship between science writers and government public affairs people "love-hate," and quoted Salman Rushdie to the effect that writers and the state are natural enemies. That said, the NASW Workshop IV at AAAS--"Reporter/Source/PIO Access and Response at Government Agencies: How Can it Be Improved?"--produced more of a love feast than slugfest.
Bottom line: Things generally have gotten better for reporters dealing with federal science agencies, but worse at some universities, which have lessened ready access to both scientists and media representatives.
The workshop evolved out of angry complaints from some NASW members two years ago about their increasing difficulties in prying news and interviews out of government offices. This prompted a letter from NASW officers to some federal communications officials that raised the issue and sought a constructive dialogue on the situation.
Partly in response, we got Workshop IV, with Carol Rogers of the University of Maryland moderating. The panel consisted of, in order of appearance: Jim O'Hara, FDA associate director for communications; Bob Cooke of Newsday; Denise Graveline, EPA deputy associate director for education, communications, and public affairs; Hotz of the Los Angeles Times; and Anne Thomas, NIH associate director for communications.
Cooke got to the major complaint: Access. Too often in government still, and increasingly at universities, scientists say they cannot talk with a reporter without approval of the public affairs office, he said. And that led to Cooke's second complaint. "Not only do I have to get permission from the news office, I can't find the person within the news office who can give me permission," he said.
For him, Cooke said, a call to a communications shop, whether government or university, frequently ends in a voice-mail quagmire, where he never knows if someone will return his call. Too often, no one does.
Hotz noted that government agencies increasingly require Freedom of Information requests before releasing even simple information, and he noted that public information officials frequently seemed kept in the dark by their own bosses. He said he found it hard to understand how some do their jobs as well as they do.
O'Hara, Graveline, and Thomas all denied that their offices or their agencies had policies requiring that reporters wanting to interview scientists first had to win the public information office's seal of approval. "Dr. Varmus does not want that policy," Thomas said, referring to the NIH director.
Reminded that at least some institutes and divisions within NIH long enforced a Reagan-era requirement that interviews with representatives of "major" media operations had to be cleared by the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH's bureaucratic parent, Thomas explained that HHS set that policy, not NIH.
All three federal officials acknowledged that some scientists just don't like talking with the media. And perhaps some researchers used the clearance excuse to avoid unwanted interviews, or to collect their thoughts before they spoke. O'Hara, for one, offered to run interference with any FDA scientist reluctant to talk with a reporter.
One line from Hotz' opening comments summed up the message that emerged from Workshop IV. Said he: "We always need you; you always need us, and that makes us uncomfortable."
Yup.
#
Patrick Young is a freelance writer in Laurel, MD.