EPA's War On Journalists Is Not A Good Look
from the even-if-it's-become-sadly-expected dept
The Obama administration was terrible when it came to how it treated journalists, acting vindictively against many journalists, and opening up investigations that created massive chilling effects on journalism. While some supporters of our previous President insisted that these actions were necessary due to the journalists "leaking" or revealing sensitive information, that's a ridiculous claim. A journalist's job is to report on things, including revealing the kind of information a government would prefer be kept secret. And, more importantly, normalizing a government at war with the journalists who cover it was bound to be abused even more going forward.
And that brings us to the current administration, whose attacks on journalists have been frequent as well, though of a different, more clumsy nature. While the last administration focused on keeping secrets and launching chilling investigations, this one seems focused on name calling and hamfisted attempts at shutting out the media in the most obvious and petty of ways. Neither approach is good, but the current administration's attacks on journalists are so blatant and so stupid, it just makes people wonder what they're so afraid of.
While most people think mainly about the President's comments about the media, the EPA's attitude towards the media may be even more instructive. Just a few weeks ago, NY Times reporter Eric Lipton, in an interview with NPR's Terry Gross, explained how the EPA sought to shut out the media:
Well, this has been something that's been apparent to reporters that cover the EPA for a year now where every Friday or so we send in a request to the Agency to ask them what's up this week, where is the administrator going? And, you know, therefore can we be there essentially to observe his activity as he travels around the United States, in some cases around the world? It's part of our job to cover that. They never tell us where he's going.
And, you know, every Friday we send in this email to say, you know, we're trying to do our jobs to cover the Agency. What they do is they take their trips. They require that the participants that are, you know, part of the various events that they're going to have not tell any reporters unless they selectively pick a reporter they think is going to give them good treatment. And the only time that we become aware of it is when Scott Pruitt or his staff sends out tweets, and then they issue a press release with photos taken from the staff. So honestly, it's a bit like propaganda as opposed to actual events that the public has access to.
Later in the interview, Lipton shares another story of how EPA boss Scott Pruitt almost ended up at an event where open questions would be asked -- after the organizer of the event declared that it was a town hall-style event with questions, and the EPA not only flipped out and said no Q&A would be allowed, but sent that organizer a list of "allowed" questions that included hard hitting journalistic inquiries like "What has it been like to work with President Trump?"
So it should come as little surprise that on Tuesday, at an event where Pruitt was scheduled to speak, the EPA decided to just keep a bunch of reporters out. Specifically, reporters from the Associated Press, CNN, and an environmental publication called E&E News. In the case of the AP reporter, Ellen Knickmeyer, security allegedly "grabbed [her] by the shoulders and shoved [her] out of" the EPA building.
The EPA's response was that these reporters were blocked due to space constraints:
“The leadership summit quickly reached capacity with a wide variety of stakeholders including representatives from over 40 states, territories, and tribes,” Wilcox said in a prepared statement.
And that sounds like a valid excuse until you hear that there were "dozens of empty seats in the room" according to reporters who were there (mentioned in the same link above).
The EPA also tried to blame the AP reporter for security grabbing her and removing her from the building, but later had to change its false statement claiming that she had tried to shove her way in, which does not appear to be true.
After security told her that “we can make you get out,” Knickmeyer said she took out her phone to record what was happening. Some of the security guards reached for it, and a woman grabbed her shoulders from behind and pushed her about five feet out the door.
Wilcox issued a statement late Tuesday saying Knickmeyer “pushed through the security entrance.” After the AP objected to the characterization, the spokesman issued a second statement removing that account and instead saying Knickmeyer “showed up at EPA but refused to leave the building after being asked to do so.”
Separately, the argument that this was a space issue is undermined by a report that the EPA had a list of which reporters were to be blocked. According to CNN:
A CNN photographer was screened by security guards before the event and was waiting for an escort or further information. Wilcox arrived soon after and provided security with a list of news outlets and reporters, instructing them not to let anyone not on the list into the event. The CNN photographer then asked if he could enter the event and was told by security he couldn't.
This is a really bad look for an agency that already is looking pretty dismal. The fact that some press was let in and others weren't -- and that phony excuses were used multiple times in multiple ways -- suggests an agency that wants to be vindictive against coverage it doesn't like. These kinds of attacks on the press may be different in nature than those of the previous administration, but it does show how the general attacks on the press by any administration are shameful attempts to avoid being held accountable. While the strategies may be different, the end effect is a much weaker and less well-informed society. That should be seen as a serious problem.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, censorship, epa, journalism, scott pruitt
Companies: associated press, cnn
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A cow-pat by any other name...
The fact that some press was let in and others weren't -- and that phony excuses were used multiple times in multiple ways -- suggests an agency that wants to be vindictive against coverage it doesn't like.
Lie. The word you're looking for is 'lie', as in 'Wilcox, speaking for the EPA, lied multiple times about the actions taken by and on behalf of the agency, and the reasons for them.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is also true of even smaller, non-death stories. If you're going to a contentious city council meeting about water rights, you SHOULD have half the story written well before the meeting. In order to understand the issue at hand, you'll need to do research to know what's being talked about. You'll also need to inform your readers, since they don't know either.
In many cases, nothing "surprising" happens at meetings — you can call councilors ahead of time and know how they're going to vote, because they very rarely make up their minds at the actual meeting. You can thus have the basic format of the story completed, with only quotes and specifics needing to be added. It's not any different than if you'd waited until after the meeting, except it's usually a) better (as you're less crunched for time), and b) faster, because you did the work ahead of time.
Now, this can obviously be misused and abused, but just "I saw someone writing a story ahead of time" isn't bad, it's good. The reporter took downtime (flying) and turned it productive, so that once he or she got off the plane, they could focus on the actual reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like Daddy Trump, like Trumplets in his administration.
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/22/lesley-stahl-donald-trump-said-he-attacks-the-med ia-so-when-you-write-negative-stories-about-me-no-one-will-believe-you/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except himself and his voter base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever listened to Trump since the 80s? Even he doesn't believe his own BS. His base will believe anything that indicates that they might put non-white/non-Protestant people back in their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The hard part will be cleaning up the mess he is making after he is out of office, whenever and however that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh, I'd always figured he was just constantly attacking the press because he was throwing tantrums that they keep saying mean things. I guess he does have a reason for doing so(though I suspect it's in addition to the tantrum one rather than instead of).
On the plus side at this point I suspect the only ones who believe him when he says something are his direhard supporters, who would believe whatever he said no matter what the press said, with or without his attempts to undermine them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprise surprise
this is how government generally acts in daily operations. the specific personalities/agencies involved on any given day (Obama, EPA, Trump, FCC, LBJ, Nixon, Lincoln, etc) are insignificant to the overall problem we face as citizens.
people who somehow expect big government to be routinely honest, transparent, and cooperative are pitifully naive, ignoring vast amounts of current and historical information. Public Servants ain't no such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: surprise surprise
Granted, it takes a lot of effort for the torches and pitchforks to come out, but I think we're seeing the signs that the only way the public will be heard is with gunshots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Press the issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The T-Rump Era continues unchallenged.
I understand that for most Americans, the president is a near-religious figure, and that the belief in the American Way of Democracy is a near-religion, but how can they simply pretend to not see the tide coming their way, or that their state politico-religion has already been heavily compromised by the Billionaire Cabal in power?
How can such a huge percent of nation's people be so deeply into denial, when the Trump Gang daily shoves reality in their faces?
Frankly, it staggers the mind.
To save face, another nation has fallen to Fascism, as the people there simply refuse to see the writing on the wall, lest it tarnish their belief system.
Apparently, this is why Fascism always works, no matter how blatantly obvious.
C'est la vie eh.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The T-Rump Era continues unchallenged.
How big is huge? I thought it was 20 to 30 percent and decreasing as we speak. Even some of the GOP hardliners have begun speaking out against trump's latest gaff where he thinks he can simply revoke someone's citizenship. Forced patriotism? What is this, North Korea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The T-Rump Era continues unchallenged.
That is an interesting statistic.
I have to wonder what its source might be.
Certainly not Fox News.
---
The American Way is broken. Has been for some time now.
Due process is no longer even considered as a courtesy by law enforcers or the courts in most cases.
Law enforcement now adheres strictly to the rules of war fare engagement, and the American Public are the Adversary. They are druggies, infringers, and terrorists.
Your government now spends more time spying on Americans then on any other nation on earth and is making deals with old enemies to help it spy on Americans so it can claim innocence.
You are guilty until you can prove your innocence, at your own huge expense, and even then may be prosecuted and incarcerated should your innocence be seen as proof of guilt of a corporation or political figure.
Possess a contraband drug or banned product and your rights are instantly non-existent, if you are not among the one percent.
You can be shot dead in the streets by a cop and nobody is to blame but you, under law.
Corporations - a legal scam invented to eliminate personal legal responsibility for the criminal actions of the "incorporated person", now control the government, the media and the education of your children, to name only a few areas of daily life.
If, as you state, 70-80% of Americans are aware of these facts, why has nothing changed? Or are these facts, not actually facts in their world view?
Or in yours.
Why are a gang of obvious criminals still occupying the White House, rewriting the laws that protect people into laws that allow the exploitation of people for the benefit of the already mega wealthy.
Could it be because none of these billionaires in power give a shit what Americans want anymore because they're making money like never before and have already set themselves legally beyond the law, so Americans have no voice in their own country, simply because nobody in power is listening?
Who do you address a grievance to when nobody is listening?
Who will dare air a grievance when the only result is arrest, detainment or rendition and the ruination of one's life?
Until Americans realize that it really can happen here, these thieves in business suits will multiply and escalate their feeding frenzy until the nation is drained back into a new depression, or stuck in an eternal, but profitable for the 1% state of war.
While 20-30% may be the figure attributed to those who have not yet seen the writing on the wall, the other 70-80% are still unwilling to admit that their "God-Gifted" American Way could ever be compromised, let alone taken over by a gang of fascist billionaires and used against the American public, for fun and profit.
"It Can't Happen Here." is still their mantra.
Even while its happening on a daily basis right in front of their faces.
Remember - A sleeping giant may be slain quite easily if it simply cannot awaken.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EPA - Extremely Pathetic Activities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]