Florida City Officials Spend $50,000 To Find Out Who Gave Journalists A Public Record

Journalism

from the pettiest-cash-of-all dept

The city government of Tamarac, Florida has found a novel way to spend taxpayers’ money: paying someone to find out who handed public records to someone entitled to receive public records. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

The cost to Tamarac taxpayers will be as much as $50,000 for the city to hire a private investigator to figure out who gave public records to a reporter, according to records released Friday.

City leaders are scheduled to approve hiring the law firm of Kim Vaughan Lerner on Wednesday to conduct a “forensic” search to try to find who gave the South Florida Sun Sentinel a memo that is a public record in Florida.

$50,000 from taxpayers to hire someone taxpayers likely don’t believe needs to be hired to discover the source of records taxpayers are entitled to have access to. An investigation so self-serving the city can barely be bothered to defend it. But since the city holds the power and the taxpayers’ purse strings, the investigation will continue.

Why are city leaders so hot and bothered they’re willing to chase the paper trail of a presumptive public record that ended up in the hands of journalists? Well, it sure as shit isn’t because they’re concerned in any way about the public they’re supposed to be serving.

No, this expensive paper chase is the result of city leaders being embarrassed by their own misuse of public funds. The budget amendments handed to the Sun Sentinel included plenty of perks for city employees — several of which directly benefited the people approving the amendments. This $50,000 will just be more ill-spent taxpayer “revenue,” joining other public expenditures that have done nothing but reward city legislators for being bad stewards.

The city memo in dispute had outlined several budget amendments that would benefit the city commissioners themselves, including new retirement, full health benefits, and stipends for technology and education.

Those budget amendments, which have since been scrapped from being placed on a city agenda, came within months of other forms of spending that leaders passed for themselves to do their part-time job. That included a $25,000 personal initiative fund and a $15,000 local travel fund, on top of their salary, car and phone allowances, and out-of-town travel money.

The $50,000 will be spent interviewing officials and staffers to determine who “leaked” presumptively-public information to the public. This includes reviewing communications sent and received by everyone currently under this super-weird form of suspicion, which apparently includes anyone with access to the budget documents. There’s no word yet whether this internal investigation will manifest outwardly, but one suspects city officials willing to spend $50,000 investigating the source of public info won’t shy away from targeting the journalists who published the information.

No commissioner expressed any dismay with the outsized set of perks being handed to them or the willingness to waste money investigating a non-existent breach/leak. But one commissioner mistook her public platform for a mirror, issuing this… um… statement:

Commissioner Debra Placko chastised whoever gave out the information, saying at last week’s meeting, “Shame on you for being despicable.”

LOL. “Despicable” is spending $50,000 to find and punish the person who embarrassed you using nothing more than public records anyone could have obtained. Good luck with that. And good luck with your next election run, charlatans A-D (the decision to hire an investigator passed 4-1). This is not just stupid. It’s expensive. And it does nothing more than show the public who their servants are actually serving.

Filed Under: florida, foia, private investigator, public records, tamarac, transparency

Donald Trump Caused The Techlash

Journalism

from the 2016-election-was-the-tipping-point dept

In October 2016, I pitched USC a research proposal about the tech coverage’s non-investigative nature and the influence of corporate PR. I thought that at the end of this project, I’d have indictive documentation of how the tech media is too promotional and not tough enough. When I sat down to analyze a full year of tech coverage, the data presented quite the opposite. 2017 was suddenly full of tech scandals and mounting scrutiny. The flattering stories about consumer products evolved into investigative pieces on business practices, which caught the tech companies and their communications teams off guard.

Like any good startup, I needed to pivot. I changed my research entirely and focused on this new type of backlash against Big Tech. The research was based on an AI-media monitoring tool (by MIT and Harvard), content analysis, and in-depth interviews. I had amazing interviewees: senior tech PR executives and leading tech journalists from BuzzFeed News, CNET, Recode, Reuters News, TechCrunch, Techdirt, The Atlantic, The Information, The New York Times, The Verge, and Wired magazine. Together, they illuminated the power dynamics between the media and the tech giants it covers. Here are some of the conclusions regarding the roots of the shift in coverage and the tech companies’ crisis responses.

The election of Donald Trump

After the U.K.’s Brexit referendum in June 2016, and specifically, after Donald Trump became the president at the end of 2016, the media blamed the tech platforms for widespread misinformation and disinformation. The most influential article, from November 2016, was BuzzFeed‘s piece entitled, “This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook.” It was the first domino to topple.

When I asked what was the story that formed the Techlash, all the interviewees answered, in one way or the other, that it was the election of Donald Trump. “Even though it wasn’t the story that people wrote about the most, it was the underlying theme.” Then, new revelations regarding the Russian interference with the U.S. election evolved into a bigger story. On November 1, 2017, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, testified in front of the U.S. Congress. The alarming effect was from combining the three testimonies together.

In the tech sector, there’s a sentence that you hear a lot: “change happens gradually then suddenly.” There were years and years of “build-up” for the flip, but the flip itself was in the pivotal moment of Donald Trump’s victory and the post-presidential election reckoning that followed it. The main discussion was the role of social media in helping him win the election.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected in November 2016, the Techlash might have been much smaller. “We would not have seen the amount of negative coverage. It is not just because almost every tech journalist is reflectively anti-Donald Trump; it is that almost every tech person is anti-Donald Trump.” As a result, Silicon Valley began to regret the foundational elements of its own success. The most dire warnings started to come from inside the industry as more sources spoke up and exposed misdeeds.

Then, in 2018, the Cambridge Analytica scandal unlocked larger concerns about social media’s influence and the careless approach toward user privacy. It also shed light on the fact that technology is progressing faster than consumers’ ability to process it and faster than the government’s ability to regulate it.

The companies’ bigness and scandals around fake news, data breaches, and sexual harassment

There were more factors at play here. It was also the tech companies’ scale and bigness, being too big to fail. All the tech giants are at a place where they are getting scrutiny, if nothing else, because of how big and powerful they are. On the one hand, growth-at-all-cost is a mandate. On the other, there are unforeseen consequences of that same growth.

According to the tech journalists, those unintended consequences are due to the companies’ profound lack of foresight. They were blind, and this blindness came back to bite them. Thus, it’s the companies’ fault for not listening to the journalists’ concerns.

However, the big data analytics and content analysis showed that focusing only on the post-election reckoning or the tech platforms’ growing power won’t fully explain the Techlash. A large number of events in a variety of issues shaped it. Their combination led to the “It’s enough” feeling, the mounting calls for tougher regulation, and the #BreakUpBigTech proposition.

We had cases of extremist content and hate speech, and misinformation/disinformation, like the fake news after the Las Vegas shooting; privacy and data security issues, following major cyber-attacks, like “WannaCry” or data breaches, like Equifax, but also at Facebook, Uber, and Yahoo, which raised the alarm about data privacy and data protection challenges; and also allegations of an anti-diversity, sexual harassment, and discrimination culture. It was in February 2017 that Susan Fowler published her revelations against Uber (prior to the #MeToo movement). It symbolized the toxicity in Silicon Valley. All of those time-bombs started to detonate at once.

The tech companies’ responses didn’t help

When I analyzed the tech companies’ crisis responses, I had different companies and a variety of negative stories, and yet the responses were very much alike. It created what I call “The Tech PR Template for Crises.” The companies rolled out the same playbook, over and over again. It was clear; big tech got used to resting on their laurels and was not ready to give real answers to tough questions. Instead, they published the responses they kept under “open in case of emergency.”

One strategy was “The Victim-Villain framing”: “We’ve built something good, with good intentions/ previous good deeds and great policies -but- our product/ platform was manipulated/misused by bad/malicious actors.”

The second was pseudo-apologies: Many responses included messages of “we apologize,” “deeply regret,” and “ask for forgiveness.” They were usually intertwined with “we need to do better.” This message typically comes in this order: “While we’ve made steady progress … we have much more work to do, and … we know we need to do better.” Every tech reporter heard this specific combination a million times by now.

They said, “sorry,” so why pseudo-apologies? Well, because they repeatedly tried to reduce their responsibility, with all the elements identified in number one: reminder strategy (past good work), excuse strategy (good intention), victimization (basically saying, “We are the victim of the crisis”), scapegoating (blaming others). They emphasized their suffering since they were “an unfair victim of some malicious, outside entity.”

The third thing was to state that they are proactive: “We are currently working on those immediate actions to fix this. Looking forward, we are working on those steps for improvements, minimizing the chances that it will happen again.” It’s Crisis Communication 101. But then, they added, “But our work will never be done.” I think those seven words encapsulate everything. Is the work never done because, by now, the problems are too big to fix?

It is the art of avoiding responsibility

One way to look at the companies’ PR template is to say: “Well, of course, that this is their messaging. They are being asked to stop big, difficult societal problems, and that is an impossible request.”

In reality, all of those Techlash responses backlashed. Tech companies should know (as Spider-Man fans already know) that “with great power comes great responsibility.” Since they tried to reduce their responsibility, the critics claimed that tech companies need to stop taking the role of the victim and stop blaming others. The apology tours received comments such as “don’t ask for forgiveness, ask for permission.” The critics also said that “actions should follow words.” Even after the companies specified their corrective actions, the critics claimed the companies “ignore the system” because they have no incentive for dramatic changes, like their business models. In such cases, where the media push for fundamental changes, PR can’t fix it.

The Techlash coverage is deterministic

On the one hand, there’s the theme of: “We are at a point where the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. There was a perhaps ridiculous utopianism. But it has become just as ridiculous – if not more so – on the flip side now, of being dystopian. The pendulum has swung too far” (Evil List articles, for example). On the other hand, there’s the theme of “Journalism’s role is to hold power to account. We are just doing our job, speak truth to power, reveal wrongdoing, and put a stop to it. Whoever is saying that the media is over-correcting doesn’t understand journalism at all.”

While I articulated both themes in the book, one of the concepts that helped me organize my thoughts was ‘technological determinism.’ In a nutshell, some argue that technology is deterministic: the state of technological advancement is the determining factor of society. Others dispute that view, claiming the opposite: social forces shape and design technology, and thus, it is the society that affects technology. I realized that we could describe the Techlash coverage as deterministic: technology drives society in bad directions. Period.

Then, perhaps what the few tech advocates are pointing out is that this narrative doesn’t consider the social context or human agency. A good example was the Social Dilemma. The tech critics targeted the scare tactics used to enrage people in a documentary filled with scare tactics used to enrage people. And they didn’t even notice the irony. Sadly, since they exaggerated and the arguments were too simplistic, they made it easier to dismiss the claims, even though they were extremely important. My fear here is that the exaggerations overshadow the real concerns, and the companies become even more tone-deaf. So, perhaps, we deserve a more nuanced discussion.

“It’s cool — it’s evil” “saviors — threats”

From the glorious days and the dot-com bubble to today’s Techlash, there were two pendulum swings; the first between “It’s cool” and “It’s evil,” the second between “saviors” and “threats.” Moving forward, I would suggest dropping them altogether. Tech is not an evil threat, nor our ultimate savior. The reality is not those extremes, but somewhere in the middle.

Dr. Nirit Weiss-Blatt is the author of The Techlash and Tech Crisis Communication

Filed Under: donald trump, journalism, narrative, techlash

Iowa Journalist Cleared Of All Charges In Bullshit Prosecution Over 'Failure To Disperse'

Journalism

from the that's-not-how-journalist---or-the-First-Amendment---works dept

The good news is that Iowa prosecutors’ attempt to jail a journalist for being present at a protest has failed. Andrea Sahouri — who was arrested while covering a George Floyd protest in Des Moines last summer — has been acquitted of all charges by a jury. But the fact that she was prosecuted at all is still problematic.

Sahouri was arrested by Des Moines police officers while apparently walking away from the scene of a protest. Officers at the scene broadcast conflicting orders from their squad cars. While one loudspeaker told protesters to disperse, another told protesters to “protest peacefully.” Officer Luke Wilson performed the arrest. Unfortunately, it took place out of view of nearby CCTV cameras. That shouldn’t have been a problem since Officer Wilson was wearing a body camera. But he “forgot” to ensure it was recording before he began arresting people.

The prosecution of Sahouri was handled in bad faith. Prosecutors sought to bar any mention of her employment as a Des Moines Register journalist during the court case. They claimed this case had nothing to do with press freedom — that it only involved someone disobeying a lawful order to disperse. They claimed this despite recordings of the PD’s arrival on scene showing officers issuing conflicting orders to protesters.

Police body-camera video played at the trial showed protesters blocking Merle Hay Road near the Wingstop restaurant at about 6:30 p.m. The word “disperse” from police car loudspeakers is barely audible amid the crowd noise, and the crowd is also asked to protest peacefully. Officers on the street are heard saying “get back, get back,” and many people in the crowd are shown doing just that, backing away from the street.

But the judge was having none of this bullshit, even as the prosecution donned its gaiters and waded into it. Officer Luke Wilson may have failed to activate his camera but the footage still could have been salvageable. Instead, Wilson took affirmative steps to make sure it wasn’t. That ended up hurting the prosecution’s case.

It was disclosed at trial that the body cameras used by Des Moines police have a background recording function. Had Wilson notified his supervisor promptly of his failure to turn on the camera, video still could have been captured. In a rare move, the judge instructed jurors that they could consider whether Wilson intentionally destroyed evidence favorable to Sahouri.

The prosecution also tried to use Sahouri’s own journalism against her. They claimed the photos she took of property damage to a nearby mall was evidence she had “failed to disperse.” But journalists aren’t necessarily subject to orders to disperse. And documenting newsworthy events is not the same thing as participating in them.

But the arrest did serve a limited purpose for the Des Moines PD: it deprived the public of documentation of their actions during their dispersal effort. Instead of having a neutral third party relaying info, the public was left with what police officers recorded on their cameras. And it’s safe to say Officer Wilson wasn’t the only officer who “failed” to record arrests and uses of force.

Fortunately, Sahouri has been cleared. But she should never have been charged in the first place. This may be a loss for prosecutors but it won’t deter officers from acting in bad faith again when they’re confronted with third parties recording their actions.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, andrea sahouri, des moines, failure to disperse, iowa, journalism

Public Oversight Board Releases Thousands Of NYPD Disciplinary Records

Journalism

from the at-long-last,-some-transparency dept

At long last, some more NYPD police misconduct records have been released. Last month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block the release of these records, now publicly available thanks to the repeal of a state law that shielded these records from the public eye for more than 40 years.

A first batch of records was released before the matter was even settled. Records obtained by the NY-ACLU and ProPublica were released by ProPublica even as the Police Benevolent Association secured a restraining order blocking their release. Since neither of these entities were party to the lawsuit (the PBA was suing New York City and Mayor Bill de Blasio), they weren’t subject to the court order.

The partial set of records published by ProPublica came from the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). The publication only included records for officers with at least one substantiated complaint against them. A much fuller set of data has now been released by the CCRB — a set that dates back more than 20 years and covers tens of thousands of NYPD officers.

The CCRB’s database includes information on 34,811 active NYPD officers and 48,218 inactive officers, with complaints dating back to 2000. Details about each complaint are limited to the incident date, the type of complaint (force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or offensive language), a one-or-two-word description of the allegation, and whether the complaint was substantiated.

But this won’t be the final data dump on the NYPD. The department has its own internal set of disciplinary records which are subject to the same disclosure mandates as the CCRB’s tranche. This one covers information not available in the CCRB’s database — like officers whose claims were handled by the NYPD’s internal trial system.

Some of this could be posted as early as next week, but it will be an incomplete data set.

The first NYPD records release will detail discipline cases back to 2018. After that, [Assistant Chief] Pontillo said, more data will be added — for active cops who are disciplined without a trial, and for trials, going back to 2008, for both current and ex-cops.

The NYPD will also be releasing trial room decisions for both current and former officers.

The repealed law also grants public access to disciplinary records pertaining to fire department employees and corrections officers, but neither have offered a publication date. It actually appears they may try to litigate their way through it.

Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesperson for the coalition of unions that sued to block the release of the records, provided no specific indication whether or not they plan to take further legal action.

“We’re considering our options,” Sheinkopf told Gothamist.

Well, good luck with that. The Second Circuit opinion made it pretty clear they had no actionable argument against complying with public records law.

After years of secrecy — and months of stalling — the NYPD may finally join those who’ve already released department disciplinary records. Given its history of extreme recalcitrance when it comes to transparency, it’s no surprise it will be the last to produce these documents.

Filed Under: disciplinary records, nypd, transparency

The Internet Has Enabled Independent Journalism To Flourish In Russia (For Now, At Least)

Journalism

from the the-good-and-the-bad dept

Ben Smith has a fascinating piece in the New York Times about how independent investigative journalism is flourishing in Russia, despite an oppressive (and literally murderous) autocrat in power. There are a bunch of interesting points in the article about the various techniques they use — some of which raise interesting ethical dilemmas — but what caught my eye is just how vital it turns out the internet is to these organizations to be able to do what they do. Indeed, Smith points out that this is the flip side to the current moral panic in the US and elsewhere about “alternative media” and social media being the death of journalism:

There?s a tendency in parts of the American media right now to reflexively decry the rise of alternative voices and open platforms on social media, seeing them solely as vectors for misinformation or tools of Donald J. Trump. Russia is a potent reminder of the other side of that story, the power of these new platforms to challenge one of the world?s most corrupt governments….

The new Russian investigative media is also resolutely of the internet. And much of it began with Mr. Navalny, a lawyer and blogger who created a style of YouTube investigation that draws more from the lightweight, meme-y formats of that platform than from heavily produced documentaries or newsmagazine investigations.

The other interesting tidbit is that these independent investigative reporting outfits are not just figuring out how to break astounding stories, but also how to build up support and a business model — again, using the internet.

Mr. Badanin, who modeled Proekt on the American nonprofit news organization ProPublica, said he had begun to see another sign of intense interest: financial support from his audience. About a third of the budget that supports a staff of 12, he said, now comes from donations averaging $8, mirroring the global trend toward news organizations relying on their readers. In Russia, some of this is still nascent. For instance, a colleague in Russia, Anton Troianovski, tells me that there?s a cafe near the Kurskaya Metro station where you can add to your bill a donation to MediaZona, which was founded by two members of the protest group Pussy Riot to hold the Russian justice system to account. But the protests against Mr. Navalny?s imprisonment also seem to be driving support for independent media, a phenomenon that The Bell, another of the new independent websites, christened ?the Navalny Effect.?

Of course, the article does end on something of a dark note — with many of the journalists Smith spoke to saying they fully expect a Putin crackdown on their efforts before long. And, of course, that’s nothing new in Putin’s Russia. But, it’s still fascinating, for at least this moment in time, to see these operations springing up, breaking very big stories, and actually being able to thrive thanks to the internet. Perhaps if news organizations elsewhere focused more on building a supportive audience instead of whining to the government about how evil Facebook and Google are, they’d find support as well.

Filed Under: free speech, independent journalism, internet, russia

Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism

Journalism

from the do-it dept

It’s easy to dislike and distrust Julian Assange. He’s done many things to inspire both reactions. Still, it’s important to separate out personal feelings towards the guy with the question of whether or not he broke US law with publishing the things he did via Wikileaks. For years, the Obama DOJ refused to indict him, in part due to the recognition that nearly all of Assange’s activities were similar to the kinds of things that journalists do all the time. The Trump DOJ had no such restraint (even as some prosecutors warned of problems with the idea), and as we and others have pointed out the indictment is a huge threat to investigative journalism and things like source protection.

Now that Biden is President, a whole bunch of civil rights groups have sent a letter to Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson, asking him to drop the case against Assange. The letter notes that many of the signatories do not agree with Assange or Wikileaks, but that doesn’t mean the case is a good one:

While our organizations have different perspectives on Mr. Assange and his organization, we share the view that the government?s indictment of him poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. We urge you to drop the appeal of the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates? Court to reject the Trump administration?s extradition request. We also urge you to dismiss the underlying indictment.

The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely?and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do. Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalize these common journalistic practices.

In addition, some of the charges included in the indictment turn entirely on Mr. Assange?s decision to publish classified information. News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance. We appreciate that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting bona fide national security interests, but the proceedings against Mr. Assange jeopardize journalism that is crucial to democracy.

Jameel Jaffer, who heads the Knight First Amendment Institute, which was on of the signatories on the letter, has written an article also detailing why the Biden DOJ should drop the case that is worth reading:

Of Trump?s many attacks on press freedom, however, it?s his Justice Department?s indictment of Julian Assange that could have the most significant implications over the long term. As I explained here and here, the Justice Department?s indictment of Assange focuses principally on activity that national security journalists engage in ?routinely and as a necessary part of their work??cultivating sources, communicating with them confidentially, soliciting information from them, protecting their identities from disclosure, and publishing classified information. As a result, a successful prosecution of Assange would have far-reaching implications both for national security journalists and for the news organizations that publish their work. This isn?t an accident. It?s likely why the Trump administration filed the indictment, as Jack Goldsmith observed here.

President Joe Biden plainly does not share Trump?s attitude toward the press. But the Assange case will present the Biden administration with an early test. One of the first questions Biden?s new attorney general will confront is whether to authorize prosecutors to continue to contest the decision of the Westminster Magistrates? Court, issued earlier this year, denying the United States? request for Assange?s extradition. In an interview with NPR, the outgoing U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Zachary Terwilliger, wondered whether the new administration would abandon the appeal. ?Some of this does come down to resources and where you?re going to focus your energies,? Terwilliger noted.

Again, whether you agree with Assange’s view of the world, or how you feel about Wikileaks’ apparent decision to cozy up with Russians is a separate issue from whether the indictment itself is a threat to journalism. It is. And the new DOJ should drop the case. It would be unfortunately if Biden continued along the same path the Obama administration did in pretending that journalism is a form of espionage. Dumping the Assange suit would send a clear signal that Biden actually recognizes the value and importance of adversarial investigative journalism, even if it might embarrass him.

Filed Under: doj, espionage act, free speech, joe biden, journalism, julian assange

Louisiana AG Sues Journalists To Keep Them From Obtaining Documents Detailing Sexual Harassment By Top Prosecutor

Journalism

from the The-Man-says-The-Man-will-not-be-releasing-records-about-The-Man dept

Another public official is attempting to make the public records request process even more aggravating and expensive than it already is.

In many cases, the public does what it’s allowed to do: request records. And, in many cases, governments refuse to do what they’re obligated to do. So, people sue. They dig into their own pockets and force the government to do what they were always supposed to do. And when they do this, the general public digs deep into their own pockets to pay government agencies to argue against the public’s interests.

This is diabolical enough. It’s also, unfortunately, the standard M.O. for government agencies. Pay-to-play. Every FOIA request is a truth-or-dare game played on a field slanted towards the government, which has unlimited public funds to gamble with.

But when just being dicks about isn’t diabolical enough, government agencies and officials go further. When it’s simply not enough to engage in litigation as defendants and argue against accountability and transparency, these entities go on the offensive.

That’s right. Government agencies and officials occasionally engage in proactive lawsuits, daring the defendants (i.e., citizens making public records requests) to prove they’re entitled to the documents. This shifts the burden away from the government and onto the person with limited funds and almost nonexistent power. It’s no different than demanding millions for the production of PDFs. It’s an option deployed solely for the purpose of keeping everything under wraps.

The latest participant in the “fuck the public and our obligations as public servants” is Louisiana’s Attorney General.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry on Friday sued a reporter for The Advocate and The Times-Picayune over a public-records request she filed, asking a judge to issue a declaratory judgment denying the request and seal the proceedings.

The unusual action came a few days after the newspaper warned Landry that it intended to sue him if he didn’t turn over the requested records.

Welcome to Louisiana — a state where government officials and employees don’t even need to camouflage their desire to screw the people they’re supposed to be serving because a whole bunch of local laws encourage this screwing. In this case, the AG undid the lawsuit threat — one predicated on the state’s refusal to hand over requested documents — by firing off a lawsuit of his own. And just like that, the burden of proof needed to keep these documents out of the public’s hands has been shifted to the public, as represented by the Times-Picayune.

One has to ask why the AG would need to keep these records hidden. There’s alleged malfeasance afoot, and the sooner the public has some straight answers, the sooner this can be taken care of. The AG’s decision to insert himself and his disingenuous lawsuit into the proceedings makes everyone involved look guilty… especially since the malfeasance is coming from inside the house.

The matter dates to Dec. 14, when the reporter, Andrea Gallo, first filed a public records request with Landry’s office seeking copies of sexual harassment complaints against Pat Magee, the head of the office’s criminal division, and records of how the complaints were handled. Magee was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation that day.

It’s a terrible move in terms of optics. But it’s a brilliant move if you care less about optics than protecting your government brothers (and, to a much lesser extent, sisters).

This is the sort of thing that would be greatly served by proactive transparency. Maybe the allegations are false. Maybe they’re substantiated. But deciding to sue records requesters rather than turn over documents suggests it’s the latter. And it suggests a cover-up in the works — one that, at the very least, will allow the accused to resign before it can affect the accused’s career or pension.

Optics matter. And they matter even before the facts are in. Being upfront with the people you serve generates goodwill — something that’s valuable to have in your pocket when government employees screw up. Suing the public before they can sue you says the public is subservient to their supposed public servants. It says the government would rather anger people and drain them of their money than engage honestly with the problem and carry out their obligations to the public.

This is garbage. But it’s the same overheated garbage we’ve seen for years. And nothing will change as long as government agencies can use tax dollars to pay for legal arguments against transparency and accountability.

Filed Under: foia, jeff landry, journalism, louisiana, pat magee, sexual harassment, transparency

ICE Withdraws Demand For Journalists' Sources After Having Its Unconstitutional Demand Outed By BuzzFeed

Journalism

from the government-is-kindly-invited-to-go-fuck-itself dept

They say “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Sometimes, though, sunshine is the best RAID. When you’ve got government cockroaches (feel free to pronounce it like Tony Montana) trying to crawl all over your stuff, the best thing you can do is point all the wattage/candlepower you can on its indiscretions.

Earlier this month, ICE tried to pull some fucked up shit. It sent a subpoena — one issued by its office, not a judge — to BuzzFeed. It asked the journalists there to turn over information on their sources, apparently in hopes of closing the loop on internal investigations into leaked documents.

BuzzFeed refused. Even better, BuzzFeed posted the bullshit “request” ICE made — one that asked the site’s journalists to remain silent in the face of government overreach. The subpoena came with this request appended;

“You are requested not to disclose the existence of this summons for an indefinite period of time. Any such disclosure will impede this investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of federal law.”

BuzzFeed ignored this, along with the rest of the subpoena. Which it should. This was just internal paperwork masquerading as a government-sanctioned order. ICE has no legal right to demand information on BuzzFeed’s sources. It seems highly unlikely any court would allow this incursion on First Amendment protections. Bypassing the court by issuing its own paperwork shouldn’t be allowed. But somehow it is. Journalistic concerns know these requests are worth less than the paper they’re printed on. The problem is that not everyone knows that and degenerates like ICE are counting on people being ignorant of their Constitutional rights and protections.

BuzzFeed knows what the government can and can’t do without judicial blessing. So it published its refusal along with ICE’s faux “demand” it remain silent about the agency’s attempted Constitutional bypass. In response to its garbage being made public domain, ICE has rescinded its attempt to turn confidential sources into government witnesses/prosecution targets.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said Wednesday that it would not enforce a subpoena issued last week demanding BuzzFeed News identify its sources, a retreat from its earlier, stunning attempt to interfere with a news outlet operating under the protections of the First Amendment.

By “won’t,” ICE means “can’t.” It would be the rare judge that would approve of ICE violating long-held First Amendment protections for journalists and their sources. Even if they found a compliant judicial pawn, any challenge by BuzzFeed would see this bogus subpoena tossed onto the trash heap of ICE’s trash history by the next judge down the line.

The government cannot do this. And the government knows this. That ICE even tried indicates it’s been huffing whatever the Trump administration has been shoving into its paper bags. Just because the outgoing Prez has a hard-on for booting brown people out of the country doesn’t change the Constitutional calculus.

Filed Under: dhs, ice, journalism, protecting sources, sources, subpoena
Companies: buzzfeed

Trump Appointee Removes 'Firewall' Preventing Administration From Meddling In VOA Reporting

Journalism

from the impossible-to-breach-a-firewall-that-no-longer-exists dept

Earlier this month, it was reported that the “rule of law” Trump administration was (yet again) violating the law. In this particular case, Trump appointee Michael Pack — the CEO of the US Agency for Global Media — was breaching a codified “firewall” to target Voice of America reporters he believed were too critical of Trump and his actions.

The “firewall” was erected to prevent exactly what Pack was doing. It was supposed to allow VOA reporters to act independently, rather than be subjected to the whims of presidential administrations. Breaching the firewall allowed Pack and the White House to control the narrative by sidelining or targeting journalists who expressed anti-administration sentiments elsewhere. Specifically cited were “retweets” and “likes” of social media posts criticizing Trump, as well as certain VOA pieces that highlighted the negative aspects of administration efforts.

Apparently, the problem was the law, not the lawbreaking. As NPR reports, Michael Pack has removed the law that prevented him from meddling in the day-to-day operation of Voice of America. It was done like most unseemly moves by governments are done: late in the day during a very busy news cycle.

A regulatory “firewall” intended to protect Voice of America and its affiliated newsrooms from political interference in their journalism was swept aside late Monday night by the chief executive of the federal agency which oversees the government’s international broadcasters.

Michael Pack, a Trump appointee who assumed leadership of the U.S. Agency for Global Media in June, wrote that he acted to eliminate policies that were “harmful to the agency and the U.S. national interest.” And Pack argued they had interfered with his mandate “to support the foreign policy of the United States.”

[…]

Pack’s bold move was taken in the dark of night — announced at 10:18 p.m. Eastern Time in a note to all of USAGM’s several thousand employees, on the same night as the swearing-in of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice, and just eight days before Election Day.

Pack’s late night memo says the law needed to go because it was preventing him from directly meddling in VOA affairs. According to Pack and his “extensive legal analysis,” the VOA was always supposed to be a potential propaganda mouthpiece for sitting presidents and their administrations.

In its final hours of existence, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) issued a so-called “firewall rule,” instituting a significant misinterpretation of the 1994 International Broadcasting Act (IBA). I rescinded that rule based upon extensive legal analysis of the regulation and its conflict with Congress’s statutory mandate for USAGM – BBG’s successor – to support the foreign policy of the United States.

The “firewall rule” created a barrier between USAGM and the U.S. taxpayer-funded broadcasters and grantees under its management: the Voice of America, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Asia, and the Open Technology Fund. The rule prohibited the CEO from engaging in managerial and editorial oversight, which Congress mandated the CEO to conduct to ensure that the agency carries out its proper governmental mission.

I’m sure the FOIA requests have been sent out for copies of the “extensive legal analysis” supporting Pack’s unilateral removal of the firewall. And I’m sure no one will be seeing any responses any time soon, especially when it’s certain the USAGM will claim it’s a “deliberative” document that’s also shielded by attorney-client privilege… even if it contains little more than Pack talking himself into doing something he was already doing.

No one who represents the Administration should be directly steering the editorial direction of the Voice of America, least of all this particular appointee.

[Pack] has embraced Trump’s talk of a so-called “deep state” thwarting the president’s priorities at USAGM, and Pack echoed White House immigration policies in denying visa extensions for foreign employees. Pack also instigated investigations of the Urdu language service, the French-to-Africa service and VOA’s White House bureau chief over perceived anti-Trump bias in stories involving Trump, Democratic nominee Joe Biden, or their wives, as NPR previously revealed.

Pack truly seems to believe Voice of America should be a cheerleader for the Administration. His own bio page links to a Washington Examiner article with the headline “New foreign broadcasting chief cleans house, pushes pro-America reporting.” The article discusses Pack’s firing of every VOA radio director and his feeling that VOA should be pushing “American ideals,” along with “responsible criticism.” This housecleaning — and Pack’s latest actions — appear to be the end result of the Administration’s criticism of VOA earlier this year, just as the pandemic was taking hold in the United States.

Now that the firewall is gone, so is the language on the USAGM’s site touting the firewall’s guarantee of journalistic independence. This part of the USAGM’s “Myths and Untruths” FAQ has been memory-holed.

An essential guarantee of the journalistic credibility of U.S. global media content is the firewall enshrined in USAGM’s enabling legislation, the U.S. International Broadcasting Act.

The firewall prohibits interference by U.S. government officials, including the USAGM’s Chief Executive Officer, in the objective, independent reporting of news by USAGM networks (VOA, RFE/RL, RFA, MBN, and Radio and TV Martí), thereby safeguarding the ability of USAGM journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference.

There won’t be any more of this apparently useless “journalistic credibility,” not with Pack in charge. The VOA belongs to the Administration now. And if Pack’s rollback sticks, future presidential administrations will be able to steer the VOA towards more favorable reporting on their activities.

Filed Under: journalism, michael pack, propaganda, usagm, voice of america
Companies: voice of america