Open Government Still Not Here

[Michael Hardner]

Slashdot Story

"It seemed like a pretty simple question about a pretty cool topic: an Ottawa newspaper wanted to ask Canada's National Research Council about a joint study with NASA on tracking falling snow in Canada. Conventional radar can see where it's falling, but not the amount — so NASA, in collaboration with the NRC, Environment Canada and a few universities, arranged flights through falling snow to analyse readings with different instruments. But when they contacted the NRC to get the Canadian angle, "it took a small army of staffers— 11 of them by our count — to decide how to answer, and dozens of emails back and forth to circulate the Citizen's request, discuss its motivation, develop their response, and "massage" its text." No interview was given: "I am not convinced we need an interview. A few lines are fine. Please let me see them first," says one civil servant in the NRC emails obtained by the newspaper under the Access to Information act. By the time the NRC finally sorted out a boring, technical response, the newspaper had already called up a NASA scientist and got all the info they asked for; it took about 15 minutes."

There is something wrong with this... Managing the government's image shouldn't be a major task of the government.

[Signals.Cpl]

Slashdot Story

There is something wrong with this... Managing the government's image shouldn't be a major task of the government.

If reporters did their research people would be more willing to present them with information.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you really think that's the issue here ?

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you really think that's the issue here ?

Yes I do, I have been told many times not to talk to reporters while in uniform because they tend to twist anything you say to fit their agenda, in most cases the agenda is to sell newspapers or ads pace on their TV or Radio station. There are times when someone or a group of people make outlandish claims and journalists go with it without doing any research. People become paranoid because the government is always bad and no one wants to appear in the paper in a negative light because the reporter is intend ton doing a negative piece.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes I do, I have been told many times not to talk to reporters while in uniform because they tend to twist anything you say to fit their agenda, in most cases the agenda is to sell newspapers or ads pace on their TV or Radio station. There are times when someone or a group of people make outlandish claims and journalists go with it without doing any research. People become paranoid because the government is always bad and no one wants to appear in the paper in a negative light because the reporter is intend ton doing a negative piece.

Bad reporters and paranoid people are causing this ? Aren't you shooting the messenger ?

[Guest American Woman]

Bad reporters and paranoid people are causing this ? Aren't you shooting the messenger ?

Quite frankly, under such circumstances, I wouldn't say anything to a reporter that I didn't know and trust. So much gets taken out of context and distorted to fit an angle that the reporter/media is going for. It's sad, really.

[Signals.Cpl]

Bad reporters and paranoid people are causing this ? Aren't you shooting the messenger ?

FRANCISCO JUAREZ

[g_bambino]

There is something wrong with this... Managing the government's image shouldn't be a major task of the government.

Sounds more like the typical actions of Canada's needlessly bloated civil service than any Machiavellian conspiracy to control image.

[g_bambino]

I have been told many times not to talk to reporters while in uniform because they tend to twist anything you say to fit their agenda, in most cases the agenda is to sell newspapers or ads pace on their TV or Radio station.

Isn't that why many large organisations have public relations people?

[Michael Hardner]

Quite frankly, under such circumstances, I wouldn't say anything to a reporter that I didn't know and trust. So much gets taken out of context and distorted to fit an angle that the reporter/media is going for. It's sad, really.

That's not what happened here though. I don't think it would have been such a big deal if someone just hung up the phone because it wasn't their job to answer.

[Michael Hardner]

Sounds more like the typical actions of Canada's needlessly bloated civil service than any Machiavellian conspiracy to control image.

Agreed, although it's actually both. Maybe more of the first than the second.

[waldo]

muzzling scientists the Harper Conservative way!

about the Canadian scientific reputation that Harper Conservatives are hell bent on destroying:

Nature journal criticizes Canadian 'muzzling'

One of the world's leading scientific journals is accusing the Harper government of limiting its scientists from speaking publicly about their research.

The journal, Nature, says in an editorial in this week's issue that it's time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.

It notes that Canada and the United States have undergone role reversals in the past six years.

It says the U.S. has adopted more open practices since the end of George W. Bush's presidency, while Canada has gone in the opposite direction.

Nature says policy directives on government communications released through access to information requests reveal the Harper government has little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge.

Two weeks ago, the Canadian Science Writers' Association, the World Federation of Science Journalists and several other groups sent an open letter to Harper, calling on him to unmuzzle federal scientists.

The letter cited a couple of high-profile examples, including one last fall when Environment Canada barred Dr. David Tarasick from speaking to journalists about his ozone layer research when it was published in Nature.

[waldo]

yes, in Canada... Harper Conservatives Canada!

Harper Conservative funding cuts are a part of the strategy... but it gets more overtly devious through Conservative efforts to control the message, to prevent government scientists from commenting on AGW climate change.

Harper Conservatives muzzle climate change scientists

:

A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to "muzzle" them.

There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been 'muzzled' by the media relations policy," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of this perception, which originated with a Canwest story in February 2008, is continuing, with at least 47 articles in Canadian newspapers to date

It's definitely a scandal," said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was "muzzling scientists; they're putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they're reducing funding in key areas. . . . It's almost as though they're making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.

[waldo]

webcast from the recent AAAS panel discussion:

the very detailed AAAS press kit:

Session - Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How To Re-Open the Discourse

Across Canada, journalists are being denied access to publicly funded scientists and the research community is frustrated with the way government scientists are being muzzled. Some observe that it is part of a trend that has seen the Canadian government tighten control over how and when federal scientists interact with the media. As a result, media inquiries are delayed, and scientists are less present in coverage of research in Canada.

In 2008, Environment Canada ordered its scientists to refer all media queries to Ottawa, where communications officers and strategists would decide if the scientist could respond and help craft "approved media lines".

Stories written for the CBC, Postmedia news, the journal Nature and others have then revealed how these communication restrictions had spread to other government departments.

And the situation is somewhat similar in the United States. A recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review details how restrictive practices established by George W. Bush’s administration still hold under the current government.

This panel will be an occasion to better understand the friction between the media and the governments.

Are the tightened communication strategies symptomatic of a worldwide trend in public and private sectors? Are they justified?

How do obstructions in communications with scientists compromise science research progression and undermine democracy? And in the end, what can be done to improve the situation?

[waldo]

open government! Media minders keep tabs on federal scientists

Government media minders are being dispatched to an international polar conference in Montreal to monitor and record what Environment Canada scientists say to reporters.

The scientists will present the latest findings on everything from seabirds to Arctic ice and Environment Canada’s media office plans to intervene when the media approaches the researchers, Postmedia News has learned.

Media instructions, which are being described as a heavy-handed attempt to muzzle and intimidate the scientists, have been sent to the Environment Canada researchers attending the International Polar Year conference that started on Sunday and runs all week.

Mark Johnson, an Environment Canada spokesman, says there is nothing unusual about the plan, which he describes as “standard practice” and consistent with the government’s overall communication policy.

Others see it as the latest evidence of the warped culture of obsessive information control inside the Harper government.

Climatologist Andrew Weaver, at the University of Victoria, agrees.

“It’s going from bad to worse,” says Weaver, a vocal critic of the way the federal government has been silencing and muzzling scientists in recent years. He describes the email instructions to the polar scientists as “unbelievable.”

He also says the instructions are also “absurd” since anyone — including a journalist — is allowed to ask questions after presentations at scientific conferences. It is also common for the media to conduct impromptu interviews with speakers immediately following sessions to clarify details before filing stories on tight deadlines.

Having media minders take charge of arranging interviews and sending recordings to Ottawa is reminiscent of the way the Soviets used to send KGB agents to conferences with scientists during the Cold War, says Weaver. “It’s an affront to democracy.”

There is growing concern in many quarters about what is being viewed as the government’s excessive information control.

and doubling up on the OP:

Last week, the Ottawa Citizen reported how a reporter’s simple question about a Canada-U.S. study on snow generated a blizzard of paper at the National Research Council.

While a NASA scientist was free to pick up the phone and answer questions in a simple 15-minute interview, the NRC declined to let anyone speak with the reporter about the snow study. Instead 11 people in the Canadian agency eventually produced a list of equipment used in the study — information of little use in the story.

Environment Canada’s media office also often takes hours if not days to answer reporters’ questions, and to decide whether interviews will be granted.

Johnson took more than four hours Sunday to respond to a question about why Environment Canada wants to record interviews with its scientists, saying by email that the department maintains "a record of interviews in case of discrepancies."

Several organizations say they are concerned with the silencing of Canada’s federal scientists. Most recently PEN Canada called on the government to ensure that any restraints on the free flow of scientific information are lifted immediately.

[waldo]

a recent editorial from the journal Nature:

Frozen out - Canada's government should free its scientists to speak to the press, as its US counterpart has.

Media interactions with government scientists have undergone a reversal across North America during the past six years. In the United States, President Barack Obama's administration has directed federal science agencies to develop integrity policies with clear guidelines for scientists who are approached by journalists.

In December, agencies including the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued guidelines that promote openness with the press. For instance, NOAA and NSF-funded scientists and staff are free to speak to journalists without first seeking the approval of a public-affairs officer. The NSF's policy states that researchers are free to express their personal views as long as they make clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency. And scientists also have right of review over agency publications and press releases that claim to represent their expert opinions. Such policies may not be implemented successfully in all cases, but they show that attitudes have evolved encouragingly since 2006, when charges that then-president George W. Bush's administration had silenced US government researchers made front-page news.

Over the same period, Canada has moved in the opposite direction. Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party won power in 2006, there has been a gradual tightening of media protocols for federal scientists and other government workers. Researchers who once would have felt comfortable responding freely and promptly to journalists are now required to direct inquiries to a media-relations office, which demands written questions in advance, and might not permit scientists to speak. Canadian journalists have documented several instances in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing published, peer-reviewed literature. Policy directives and e-mails obtained from the government through freedom of information reveal a confused and Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge.

The Harper government's poor record on openness has been raised by this publication before (see K. O'Hara Nature 467, 501; 2010), and Nature's news reporters, who have an obvious interest in access to scientific information and expert opinion, have experienced directly the cumbersome approval process that stalls or prevents meaningful contact with Canada's publicly funded scientists. Little has changed in the past two years: rather than address the matter, the Canadian government seems inclined to stick with its restrictive course and ride out all objections.

That position is coming under increasing pressure as a result of the scientific-integrity policies taking shape across the border. The clarity of the US guidelines undercuts the Canadian government's assertion that its own media policies are adequate and have simply been misunderstood. If the Harper government truly embraces public access to publicly funded scientific expertise, then it should do what the Canadian Science Writers' Association and several other organizations have called for in a letter sent to the prime minister on 16 February: “implement a policy of timely and transparent communication” like those used by NOAA and the NSF.

The letter coincided with a symposium, 'Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-open the Debate', which was held last week at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, Canada. With the country taking centre stage as the meeting's host, the Harper government found its media policies in the international spotlight. Scientists and other visitors from around the globe discovered, to their surprise, that Canada's generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific nation masks some startlingly poor behaviour. The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free. (emphasis added)

[g_bambino]

Agreed, although it's actually both. Maybe more of the first than the second.

Well, yes, it is both. As I said, most organisations, including government ones, have PR departments to deal with their image. However, the transfer of the request around to eleven different people over what's implied to be an inordinately long time seems like needless bureaucratic bloat as opposed to a deliberate attempt to over-control the message.

[fellowtraveller]

Do private sector scientists speak more freely than public sector scientists?

Substitute 'employee' for 'scientist' and see if the answer differs.

[Signals.Cpl]

Isn't that why many large organisations have public relations people?

Yes, and thats also why if the department in question had no PR rep then they could pass the decision up to the next level in order to avoid having their name in the paper in case the story is twisted in a negative way.

[waldo]

in Canada, you say!

Canadian science writers given freedom of speech award

The Canadian Science Writers Association (CSWA) and the Association des communicateurs scientifique (ACS) are winners of the 14th annual Press Freedom Award for their work in exposing government restrictions on federal scientists that prevent or delay the free communication of public science through the media.

The CSWA noted in a letter to Prime Minster Harper in February that his government promised accountability and transparency, but federal scientists are still not allowed to speak to reporters without the “consent” of media relations officers. As a result, some journalists have simply given up trying to access federal scientists, while federal scientists work in an atmosphere dominated by political messaging.

“Our message is radically simple,” says CSWA president Stephen Strauss. “Eliminate the spin doctors and media minders and let tax-payer funded scientists speak for themselves. Follow the American lead where government scientists are free to speak to journalists without having to first seek the approval of a public affairs officer.”

“Science is critical to Canadian society. From climate change to oil pipelines, from epidemics to the safety of our food and water, we need to know the results of the scientific work our taxes support. We need our media to be unencumbered by needless government delays and ideological filtering,”

[bush_cheney2004]

a recent editorial from the journal Nature:

Look....over there...across the border....acronym heaven!

[dre]

Slashdot Story

There is something wrong with this... Managing the government's image shouldn't be a major task of the government.

Open government doesnt matter. After all the sun is going to burn out in a few billion years anyways

[waldo]

Harper Conservatives "open government" shuttered door policy!

John Baird happily admits Tories didn’t like axed environment watchdog’s advice

Instead of dodging the criticisms that many of their proposed budget cuts are ideological in nature, Foreign Minister John Baird came right out and admitted the Conservatives will be glad to see one federally-funded environmental advocacy group off the taxpayer’s payroll... scrapping funding for the arms-length National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE).

The Liberal leader immediately jumped on Baird’s words as proof of the Tories playing partisan politics in the budget.

“It’s clear what he is saying, the government is closing institutions down and shutting down the voices with whom they don’t agree with. They don’t like independence. They don’t like criticisms and that is why they are shutting them down,” Rae responded in French.

The round table, which was intended to bring together leaders in academia, the environmental movement and business to provide non-partisan research, has been given one year to close up shop. Scrapping the agency will save the government about $5.5-million a year.

The NRTEE has strongly warned about the economic risks of not addressing climate change.

[Michael Hardner]

Open government doesnt matter. After all the sun is going to burn out in a few billion years anyways

No, it matters very much what kind of world we make until the sun burns out.

The 'sun burning out' comment was about people complaining about sustainability of an economic system that has continued pretty much since money was invented.

[GostHacked]

If reporters did their research people would be more willing to present them with information.

Sir can I ask you a question, I am from blah blah newspaper and ....

"No comment".