FEMA Briefing: A Heck of a Press Conference

With wildfires raging across Southern California last Tuesday, cable networks Fox News and MSNBC (below) broke into their coverage to broadcast a live press briefing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Harvey Johnson, a deputy administrator, took the podium to update the public on the government’s response to the devastating blazes. However, the questions portion of the briefing featured unusually soft queries—surprising given journalists’ tendency to cross-examine the Bush Administration in the years since the Hurricane Katrina disaster. According to a USA Today article, off-camera voices in the room asked questions such as “Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective?” and “Sir, there are a number of reports that people weren't heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please?”

The problem is that these voices were not those of Washington reporters. They were of FEMA employees attending the briefing, lobbing softball questions to their boss. Journalists were unable to make it to the briefing because FEMA announced the conference less than 15 minutes before it began. The agency did create a 1-800 number reporters could call to listen to the conference, though it was not configured to allow for questions. While the conference itself was uneventful, reaction was overwhelmingly negative as word came out that the event was staged. White House Press Sectary Dana Perino said, “It's not something I would have condoned, and they, I'm sure, will not do it again." Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security (the department overseeing FEMA) was even harsher, saying “"I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government.” FEMA has since apologized and explained that it wanted to get information out as quickly as possible. When reporters did not make it in time, employees felt obligated to pose “questions” instead. CBS’s Bob Schieffer said in his weekly commentary that Chertoff should get rid of these employees all together and then “explain to the new people that the best way for a disaster relief agency to get good publicity is to do a good job helping disaster victims.” Since then, John Philbin, head of FEMA’s public relations, has left his post. In the end, the conference did little harm to the public but proved to be a major embarrassment for the administration. If the agency was solely interested in distributing information, administrators should have just turned on the cameras and read a statement to the networks tuned in at the time. The moment that those employees off camera began with the fawning questions, the American public was deceived.

The Bush administration has faced criticism for staged media content before. A 2005 New York Times article revealed that at least 20 federal agencies had produced news stories on topics from military strategy in Iraq to farm policy. These “video news releases” were sent to local TV stations and many found their way into actual broadcasts. Out of laziness or oversight, most aired without the newscast attributing the content to the government. These segments usually included “‘interviews’ with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed.” Meanwhile, opinions from critics or government watchdogs would be notably absent from the pieces. Such tactics worked well at a time when stations were under pressure to both expand their coverage and cut costs. To fill those extra minutes on the air, a free piece with slick production and a reporter who sounds credible made a very tempting addition. Admittedly, this type of press manipulation is far more complex than the decision to fake a news conference in the fog of a regional disaster, but both illustrate the administration’s strained relationship with the media. Perhaps the besieged administration sees packaged news as the only way to get good coverage—even though the aftermath usually gets more of the attention and negates the original message.

Shielding Whom? Bloggers Left Out of Federal Bill

The Free Flow of Information Act approved by the House of Representatives this past week is sparking a new debate over who is truly considered a journalist. The legislation, commonly known as the federal shield law, was first introduced in May by Representative Rick Boucher (D-Virginia). It relates to an essential tool used by seasoned broadcast and print reporters--anonymity. Journalists working on stories requiring sensitive, privileged or classified information will often grant anonymity to sources who supply details that cannot be obtained anywhere else. To the public, this is obvious when an article or broadcast piece includes attributions such as “government officials say” or “sources close to the investigations have revealed.”

Things get complicated when these anonymous sources are involved in illegal activities themselves. Authorities often try to compel journalists to reveal their sources, possibly exposing these contacts to civil and criminal prosecution. Reporters who refuse have been declared in contempt of court and sentenced to jail time. Most famously, New York Times reporter Judith Miller (left) spent eighty-five days in jail in 2005 after she refused to identify the White House official who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. This federal shield law would “shield” reporters from penalties in most instances and protect their ability to use confidential sources. However, granting these new protections requires the government define who exactly qualifies as a journalist. Media critic Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times argues that this is a slippery slope, “The whole notion of letting the government define a journalist is abhorrent to anyone who values the 1st Amendment.” He notes a Senate committee approved a measure to vaguely define journalists as anyone actively “engaged in journalism.” Meanwhile, the House version goes with a more confining definition: "A person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain."

Rutten objects to this classification because it essentially applies only to full-time reporters working at established outlets. Bloggers and part-time “citizen journalists” would effectively be left out in the cold. While Rutten may be correct that bloggers do have a valuable role in online discourse, the conclusions of his column are slightly alarmist. The technicalities within the bill are not designed to limit free speech. All citizens retain the right to speak, blog, or broadcast freely. Rather, these new definitions limit the scope of federal protections to true professionals with a need to deal with sensitive or illegal material. Leaving the definition too broad would allow anyone having contact with individuals involved in illegal activities to claim citizen journalist protection, regardless of them ever having published works in the “public interest” or not.

While there are indeed citizen journalists involved in professional, groundbreaking and honest work, Rutten’s call to protect them would also give protection to the unprofessionals, who are rightly accused on occasion of producing cliché and sometimes misleading work. Former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen argues in a new book (right) that so-called “Web 2.0” technologies like interactive blogs and YouTube have led to a “cult of the amateur” that only succeeds in producing unpolished, irrelevant and uninformed commentary. While Keen's argument overlooks the groundbreaking work taking place online today, he does fairly point out that some new technologies fail to honor true expertise or wisdom. For example, sites like Wikipedia are editable by anyone--regardless of their education or experience. Meanwhile, Keen warns that changing market pressures could bring an end to the trained, full time journalist. The public would instead turn to bloggers, who Keen says are less meticulous with facts and lack the journalistic resources of large newspapers or television networks. However these bloggers, who rely on mainstream press to inspire much of their commentary, would not survive in a vacuum. In a speech earlier this fall, PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told a university audience that there will always be a role for objective, conventional journalists. Without them, he said, search engines and blogs would not have any real news content to deliver. The professional journalists are the ones feeding the news and commentary cycle at the most basic level. Lehrer shares Keen's distrust of the bloggers who attempt deliver the news, but does not agree with the author's doomsday predictions. Nevertheless, the positions taken by these two men do raise strong counterpoints to Rutten’s argument (one that groups Pulitzer Prize winning correspondents with conspiracy theorists). Professional journalists will still have jobs for the foreseeable future, but deserve some distinction from the self-appointed pundits online. While everyone is entitled to protection under the First Amendment, this federal shield law should be reserved for those seasoned professionals dealing with situations truly requiring anonymous sources.