Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach — Crossposted from my blog, Skating Under The Ice
The media is all abuzz with claims that the Trump Administration has “gagged” or “muzzled” the EPA. Under the headline
Trump administration seeks to muzzle U.S. agency employees
the news agency Reuters reports:
On Tuesday, a source at the EPA said that staff had been told by members of the Trump administration not to speak to reporters or publish any press releases or blog posts on social media. EPA staff have also been asked not to publicize any talks, conferences, or webinars that had been planned for the next 60 days, the staffer said, asking not to be named.
The part that folks in the media don’t seem to understand is that this is standard business practice. If you run a large business you can’t have every hothead from the shipping department spouting off to the New York Times about how mean the bosses are. As a result, most large businesses have equivalent policies regarding publishing or discussing the internal business of the organization, particularly with the press.
These standard policies of large businesses generally mandate several things.
First, employees can’t talk to the press without prior authorization from the public relations department. They are told to pass all questions on to the PR department.
Next, as far as social media goes, employees are forbidden from doing anything that brings negative publicity on the organization. In particular, they cannot post on social media about what goes on at work.
Finally, it is totally verboten to discuss the future plans of the organization with anyone anywhere anytime. That is the job of the public relations department alone.
These are perfectly commonsense regulations. They are not “gagging” anyone. They are bog-standard business practice for very good reasons, and if the government employees don’t like these regulations they can go to work for Apple …
… oh, wait … Apple has exactly the same kind of policies about contact with the press and disclosures on social media, and for exactly the same reasons …
w.
PS: If you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS you are referring to, so we can all understand your subject.
From Bloomberg …
The Obama administration has also charged or prosecuted more government officials for allegedly leaking information to reporters than all of its predecessors combined, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Administration representatives monitor interviews with government officials, and often forbid government scientists and researchers from speaking directly with reporters, according to the Society of Professional Journalists.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-12/obama-falls-short-of-promise-for-transparency-journalists-say
This from a letter from the Society of Professional Journalists via reason.com …
… prohibiting staff from communicating with journalists unless they maneuver through public affairs offices or through political appointees; refusing to allow reporters to speak to staff at all, or delaying interviews past the point they would be useful; monitoring interviews; and speaking only on the condition that the official not be identified even when he or she has title of spokesperson….
The public has a right to be alarmed by these constraints–essentially forms of censorship–that have surged at all levels of government in the past few decades. Surveys of journalists and public information officers (PIOs) demonstrate that the restraints have become pervasive across the country; that some PIOs admit to blocking certain reporters when they don’t like what is written; and that most Washington reporters say the public is not getting the information it needs because of constraints. An SPJ survey released in April confirmed that science writers frequently run into these barriers.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/24/trump-makes-government-leaks-great-again
http://spj.org/pdf/news/obama-letter-final-08102015.pdf
Two wrongs don’t make a right but silence at one and outrage at the next is evidence of bias and/or shoddy reporting.
rovingbroker, so you at least agree that the public has a right to be alarmed at these constraints, whether from Obama or Trump?
I don’t believe that for an instant. Trump needs to cut off the false agenda concerning CO2 and rein in the over reach with respect to its mandate. The alarm has been over the steady over reach into peoples daily lives for the simple exercising of authority not actually in the EPA mandate. The EPA has no mandate to regulate cattle tanks on rancher land, but it has certainly been trying to do so.
“These are perfectly commonsense regulations. They are not “gagging” anyone. They are bog-standard business practice for very good reasons, ”
“”This follows similar guidance to USDA employees, who were instructed in an internal memo obtained by Buzzfeed not to release “any public-facing documents” including “news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content” until further notice.”
News releases and feeds, fact sheets etc is part of the role of these departments. Shutting this down is not bog standard practice. It s like Apple instructing its press office not to publicize anything. Apple got a new product launch? Don’t tell anyone about it.
You do not need Apple as an example. At least 99 percent of all companies do not want corporate interiors to be worn outside. These may be different, e.g. the company climate, business secrets like new manufacturing methods, new materials. I think, if you do not like it in the company, you have to look for a new one or turn to union representatives. Should employees be forced to commit unlawful deeds, there is also the possibility of informing the prosecutor’s office. Many companies have in-house Addresses for criticism. But turning to the press or chatting in social medias about such things is the worst of all ideas.
One of the purposes of these departments is to communicate and disseminate. It is not business as usual to prevent that.
What has been done here is highly unusual compared to past administrations.
seaice1 January 25, 2017 at 6:48 am
Seaice, if you took over after the Trump presidency, would you want the EPA to continue to “communicate and disseminate” the Trump EPA message while Trump’s allies prevented your team from even taking over the EPA?
This is absolutely “business as usual”, and you’d do the same. Nobody wants a government department mindlessly spewing the claims of the previous administration. You’re being as nit-picky as Nick in this one.
w.
Chris January 25, 2017 at 8:16 am
Chris, that is true about nearly everything this Administration does, and I can only thank the US’s lucky stars that it is highly unusual. The usual was strangling all life out of the country.
w.
Willis – strangling all life? Oh please, 4.9% unemployment and a world leader in many technology areas.
Chris January 26, 2017 at 8:48 am
Yes, strangling all life. Do you think Trump got elected because people think the economy is doing wonderfully?
Wall Street is rich, yes, but Main Street is broke. Unemployment is low for two reasons, because millions of people have simply left the workforce, and because they count someone with a part-time job as being employed. The number of people going from full-time to part-time has increased, but that drop in employment doesn’t register in the official figures.
In addition the number of people on food stamps has soared, home ownership rates have dropped, black family net worth (total assets minus debts) is through the floor, wages have been stagnant for thirty years, and the most telling statistic, 70,000 factories have moved overseas. As a result we are hemorrhaging money to foreign countries. You seem to think that sending billions of dollars overseas every year can go on forever …
By the way, this is what KellyAnne Conway calls “alternative facts”, and there is nothing sneaky or underhanded about them. You bring up your facts, I bring up mine, people make a choice as to which are important.
See my posts here for a deeper discussion of this question.
Thanks for your comment,
w.
Local commentaters here in Atlanta say this kind of order is common when administrations change, but this one goes farther than the usual case. Basically everyone knows that the Trump administration’s policies regarding the EPA and climate change will be very different from those of the outgoing administration. These orders are intended to prevent the EPA from continuing to operate under the old policies until the new head is confirmed, takes command and ‘splains to everyone what the new policies are.
Essentially, this is the “Ready about!” command; “Hard to lee!” is coming soon.
The thought police will be monitoring all attitudes closely. Any whistle bowing will be dealt with severely. In an age of Post truth/ Alternate facts/ False news we can’t allow anyone to to buck the trend and report accurate observations which may cause dissension in the regime.
When emperical data is ‘adjusted’ to create a trend that did not exist, how does ‘accuracy’ apply?
Mr. Phillips, I have a serious objection to your use of the phrase “whistle blowing”. This is a term that applies to the practice of exposing illegal activities in an organization, as per the Wikipedia definition that follows:
“A whistleblower (also whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.”
Therefore “whistle blowing” is intended to be very beneficial, with legal protection allowed to the individual exposing the wrong-doing. This phrase has nothing at all to do with the propagation of rumors or allowing protection to individuals to propagate nonsense in the media, because they don’t like the POTUS. Cry me a river, the votes have been cast and counted.
Too bad there weren’t any “whistle blowers” in the EPA over the past eight years ……
Or the past 20+ years ……
There is a change in US i guess?
Last I was informed You had proposal for a law to forbid all those who had different view than IPCC 1,5-4,5 deg C heating to research or inform the public.
Now the state forbid their employees to express their own opinion in the name of the state.
A change for more sanity!
oppti, QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE BABBLING ON ABOUT!!! I have no clue who the “you” is that you are railing at when you say “You had proposal for a law “, nor about the “proposal for a law” itself. You are just mumbling into your oatmeal, none of that makes any sense.
I’m not asking you to stop. I’m asking you to quote what you find objectionable, because as it stands, your post is meaningless.
w.
Good civil servants keep their mouths shut.
There is no place for activists of any sort in the civil service. Civil servants are supposed to work hard and dispassionately for the country no matter which party is in power. They take an oath to that effect.
Then, there is the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act of 1939, officially “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities,” is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity.
I believe that it is no stretch to assert that the preponderance of leaks to and open collaboration with the press, NGOs, and other politically-driven entities, that have been coming from the federal bureaucracies for decades – especially those from State and the EPA – are prohibited political activity per the Act. E.g., James Hanson & “Richard Windsor.”
Thank you very much, Mr. Eschenbach, for your article on this topic. And thank you to those who have very clearly attempted to explain that yes, this is standard operating practice in business. I work for a multinational company and we have to take mandatory training on this and other topics. And there is a shelf-life on this training, requiring review on a specified schedule.
And yes, there are times when “no comment” is the correct answer however more importantly is to typically respond in the manner of, “I have no comment on that topic, please contact our Public Relations department, they can be reached at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.”
The overall intent is standard operating practice, however I do agree with Mr. Allan Watt that yes, the magnitude of this specific directive extends beyond what would be considered “normal”. And Mr. Watt very accurately points out that since this is the epitome of “the changing of the guard” at the top levels, it is truly warranted.
FOIA violation? Get real! Or get a life! This directive is intended to protect the majority of the staff at the EPA from tripping over themselves for if they do, “You’re Fired!” might be heard quite a lot in the halls of the EPA.
Sorry for misspelling your first name, Alan ……
Willis have you considered the effect of a tax credit for payroll races on employment? Unlike typical business expenses, employees pay taxes on income not profits, so their expense should be treated differently than other expenses because of their tax benefit to society. Allowing business to take a tax credit for the employees income taxes would provide a huge incentive to hire US workers.
Willis says: ” this is standard business practice”
..
True, but President Kitty Snatcher isn’t running a business anymore.
This is standard practise for any large organisation which has the power to influence others.
Imagine if some intern at the EPA answers the phone from a journalist, gets chatting and let’s slip that there’s an investigation into Biggo Corporation on the desk in front of them.
The journalist then reports that Biggo Corporation is being investigated. Biggo Corporation shares fall. There are layoffs.
The report on the desk had actually been found to exonerate Biggo Corporation of virtually everything, except one small incident worth a slapped wrist and a demand to sew grass where there lorries had parked. The journalist told the truth. Biggo Corporation was investigated and a finding upheld. But the impact on Biggo Corporation was vastly excessive.
So then Biggo Corporation sues the EPA for failing to control its information and misrepresenting Biggo Corporation… More expense for the taxpayer.
There are many victims in this tale. Not the least of which is the unemployable intern.
And all caused by an organisation failing to be run properly. This is standard practise for any large organisation for a very good reason.
Apparently Trump added, as an addendum, “If you do comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS you are referring to, so we can all understand your subject.” 😉
Excellent post, Willis.
You are absolutely correct. This is standard operating procedure at each company where I have worked either as an employee or as a contractor. The transition to the administration of President Trump has roughly the same effect on Federal agencies as a takeover would have in the private sector. In a takeover, if someone in the target company would make public statements without prior approval, they could find their employment abruptly terminated.
Posted the exact same points as your article on a blog yesterday on “the Hill”. Must have received 20 vicious replies stating the public paid for these employees so they had every right to speak publicly to straight out f u.
Left just doesn’t want to “get it” and will be forever angry.
One constant with Nick, any conversation he become embroiled in quickly descends into noisy irrelevancy.
As always, Nick has achieved his purpose. Change the topic of the conversation from reality to himself.
Willis, as you know I’m a huge fan of you and your work. And I agree that the EPA has overstepped its bounds.
But your fundamental premise here is just incorrect: “The part that folks in the media don’t seem to understand is that this is standard business practice. If you run a large business you can’t have every hothead from the shipping department spouting off to the New York Times about how mean the bosses are. As a result, most large businesses have equivalent policies regarding publishing or discussing the internal business of the organization, particularly with the press.”
Your statement above implies a parallel between the EPA and “a large business” that is not correct.
The EPA is a government agency, NOT a business.
As a taxpayer, I pay their salaries, and the administrators of the agency (up to and including President Trump) are my employees.
A good analogy is that I’m a board member, and I have every right to know what the hotheads in the shipping department are whining about. Because the EPA is acting in MY name and has as its underlying authority ME, the U.S. taxpayer. If I want to hear the un-massaged, un-spun, personal, subjective comments of an EPA staffer–that is 100% my right, because I’m the one writing the checks, and upon whom the administration’s authority rests.
Johna Till Johnson January 25, 2017 at 10:29 am
No, you do NOT “have every right to know what the hotheads in the shipping department are whining about”. If that were the case it would be legal for people to disclose government secrets.
And no, it is NOT your right to “hear the un-massaged, un-spun, personal, subjective comments” of government employees. Go tell the director of the CIA or the people who design atomic bombs that it is your “right” to know everything that they know, and see how far you get.
Johna, what you do have is the right to file a Freedom Of Information request if there is something you want to know. Other than that, there is no “right” for citizens to know everything the FBI does, or the Homeland Security does, or what any other government agency does.
w.
Gareth Phillips January 25, 2017 at 5:14 am
Say what? That is absolute nonsense. I’ve never held those positions you claim. Nor has this site “bravely campaigned” for some policy on tampering.
This is why I ask people to QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS, because of charming fellows like you who show up to tell flat-out falsehoods about me.
If you think there is any conflict between freedom of speech (a right guaranteed to all americans) and business restrictions on what an employee can divulge, you’re simply not paying attention. If you wish to discuss this further, get up off your dead okole and QUOTE WHAT YOU DON’T LIKE.
Man, some people’s children …
w.
Does this mean that Gavin will have to shut down his blog, which he operates on the taxpayers’ dime, once these reforms reach NASA?
Phil. January 25, 2017 at 7:54 am
You and others miss the point. That bogus “dossier” was 1) wrongly attached to the briefing, because the intelligence community knew it was false, and then 2) the FACT that the dossier was attached to the briefing was leaked to the public. This gave the “dossier” instant credibility.
Trump is absolutely right that that leak had to come from the intelligence services, because nobody else knew the bogus document was attached to the briefing.
Which makes the whole thing an intelligence setup to damage Trump.
See my post here on the subject. You’re being led around by the nose by the media and the intelligence community.
w.
Willis,
It goes beyond what you have written. Yes, these are standard business practices. They are also standard practices at the EPA. The EPA is being reminded that these are their standard practices.
The Office Of Public Affairs is in charge of all of this and the appointee who will be running this office will change. As can be seen on the OPA website: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-public-affairs-opa
OPA is the primary office for all EPA communications. The Associate Administrator for Public Affairs is the principal advisor to the Administrator on all issues concerning short-term and long-term strategic communications. OPA:
•prepares speeches for the Administrator and senior managers,
•serves as the principal news media gateway for official agency announcements, press releases and statements, speeches, Congressional and public hearing testimony, biographies of principal officers, and other documents of public interest,
•coordinates the agency’s external message for emergency response activities,
•serves as the agency-wide point of contact for the planning, developing, and reviewing of all agency print, promotional, display, audiovisual and broadcast products (other than news and web-based products) intended for the public,
•directs agency multilingual outreach and communications efforts,
•manages EPA’s web content, including content on epa.gov and in new social media, and
•communicates with EPA personnel on a variety of topics.
Programs and Projects Managed by OPA
•EPA newsroom
•Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and other social media channels
•The EPA Blog
One of the reasons that federal agencies can’t allow everyone from the janitor to the mail room clerk posting tweets as though they were official policy is this recent tweet from the Badlands NPS: “…Ocean acidity has increased 30% since the industrial revolution…”
As I have written here previously, “A pH decline from 8.2 to 8.1, the commonly claimed recent change in seawater, (http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=150429) amounts to a change of -1.2% on the pH scale (-0.1/8.2) and it would take a change of about -15% to reach neutrality (pH = 7). It is disingenuous to cite an equivalent change of 30% in the untransformed active hydrogen ion concentration (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/alex-mifflin/oceans-co2-seafood_b_7286392.html) without noting the percentage change required to reach even neutrality, let alone an actual significant acid condition. The alleged change that has occurred in hydrogen ion concentration is actually about 25% (The value usually cited is rounded up considerably!). It would take a change of nearly 1500% in the hydrogen ion concentration to reach neutrality. That is, there has been a percentage change of about 1.7% (25%/1500%) of hydrogen ion concentration necessary to reach neutrality.”
The Badlands tweet was little more than sound-bite propaganda intended to influence the unsophisticated. For that reason, this out-of-context tweet was not science, but rather, bald-faced political activism.
‘The part that folks in the media don’t seem to understand is that this is standard business practice.’
Oh they understand, alright – but spin and misrepresentation is THEIR standard business practice.
Perhaps I’m repeating what has already been discussed, I don’t want to read all the snippy comments that are going back and forth on the subject just to check. FOIA requests must be for already existing documents. No interpretations, comments, opinions, annotations, or compositions are made for the FOIA response; everything that can be released existed before the request was made. Also, there is a comprehensive formal list of what can not and will not be released to a FOIA request, mainly oriented towards protecting criminal justice activities, non-relevant personal privacy, and classified information. This is all very different from leaks, postings, and general statements about internal business made by those inside wishing to direct public opinion.
First off, I have never seen a single scientist who ever cited the EPA’s climate change pages for anything.
This is because it’s not just that “much of the scientific and emissions data on the agency’s site exists elsewhere in the government” as they say. ALL of the data on the agency’s site is secondary data from somewhere else. Well, except for the often-bogus and often-political “scientific” analyses by their pet tame scientists …
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine never forgets, making their oh-so-noble work of preserving data 100% paranoia-driven redundancy …
The best thing about global warming is that the snowflakes are melting …
w.
“Not to mention that the Wayback Machine never forgets, making their oh-so-noble work of preserving data 100% paranoia-driven redundancy …”
Where is your proof that all data is accessible through a web site, and that ALL web site data is captured by the wayback machine?
[instead of being lazy and demanding, why not look it up yourself? -mod]
Also, under FOIA, what gets released, or not released, is, officially, an agency level response. When there is any dispute, there is an appeal process and, ultimately, the Federal courts get to adjudicate.