- Email: [email protected]
Information officers and reporters: Friends or foes?
David II. Browi.
Information Officers and Reporters: Friends or Foes? A leader in the projessionalization of government communications suggests that government information officers should view their mission as a commitment to public information rather than public relations. This shift in orientation, he says, might improve the relationship between the information specialist and the reporter who comes to him in search of information but is wary of becoming a "dumping ground" for publicity material. But the reporter, too, should not expect the information officer to do his reporting for him. Sometimes members of the media will have to develop their own sources within an agency in addition to asking for guidance from the information office. "We need each other," concludes David H. Brown, special assistant to the Public Printer of the United States. Mr. Brown has worked for the Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. He is the founding president of the National Association of Government Communicators. These remarks are excerpted from Mr. Brown's speech to the Cleveland chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists.
I
hope we can start by agreeing that communication is a two-way street. If we cannot understand that meaning, I fear we will be like the college freshman who admitted in English class that he had never read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" because he did not follow football. Also inherent in our understanding is that we dismiss preconceived notions and biases before we hear what message is being transmitted. I had a wonderful speech teacher at Cleveland College, Claire Henderleider, who
29
••..hlie Itelatlons Iteview etched into my memory a piece of valuable advice: "There are three sides to every issue - yours, mine, and the truth ." Having spent considerable time now reporting news and literally making it, my feet are firmly planted on both sides of the question . "Government Public Information and the Media - Friends or Foes7" I find myself appreciating each side more. I am well aware that your views and mine on this subject may not coincide, but that does not automatically mean one of us is right and the other wrong. I find one of the basic problems in government/press relations is that we are prone to challenge one another to mortal word duels because we cannot understand, or tolerate, the role of the other. We must cease and desist from stereotyping each other and using exceptions as the rule in our judgments. The media, for example , are portrayed as convinced that the government is run by incompetents trying to abscond with the till while trying to make the public believe everything is A-OK. On the other hand, there are those who picture government as being convinced the media is run either by radical liberals or conservatives who are to the right of Attila the Hun. So, the first thing to understand is the enormity of government information; the second will be to view the relative minuteness of the media trying to cover Federal agencies. Then I'll share with you some recommendations to make both of us do a better job. There is a portion of the U.S. Code that deals with Executive branch departments. Sandwiched in between the section which proh ibits detective agency employees from working for the Federal Government or the District of Columbia . and the section which provides compensation for Government experts, we find this little gem: No money appropriated by any act shall be used for the compensation of any publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Since most agencies disguise such appropriations, a problem develops . In any event , that law came into being on October 22, 1913. Nearly 60 years later, the House Committee on Government Operations recommended that the law be repealed because it "has acted to place dedicated public information personnel within the Civil Service in a status of illegitimacy. " No legislative effort has been made to repeal that 1913 law . So. there are those who feel we are still publicists or Federal flaks . They draw no distinction between publicity - which means to influence - and public information - which aims to inform. The Government Information Superstructure In order for us to explode that myth, let us apply the eyeglass to government in general, and information in particular. There may be only three branches of government. but each is honeycombed with beehives of information activity. The Executive Branch has the Wh ite House at centerstage. The supporting cast includes Cabinet-level departments, regulatory and independent
30
luforluatJou Omeers agencies, and the military (which is a vast information armada unto itself). Many of these entities have structured bureaus and the like, each with its own information capability. In addition, most agencies have regional headquarters throughout the country with autonomous information shops. The Legislative Branch contains not merely the Congress but the Library of Congress - obviously - the Government Printing Office - perhaps not so obviously - and the General Accounting Office. Then there is the Judicial Branch, featuring the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Washington Post once described as "one of the most secretive institutions in all government." If that labyrinth begins to boggle the mind, don't lose sight of the fact that so far I have only described the Federal Government. There are parallels at the state, county, and local level. Consider also that each of the ten major governmental categories and four levels I outlined have a variety of information specialists - print and electronic press officers; publications writers, editors, and designers; audiovisual specialists; speech writers; exhibits personnel; persons who answer public, congressional. and White House inquiries; etc. Some clearly carry the title of their job skill. Many others are euphemistically tucked away in the vast morass that is the government. Relatively few deal directly with the media, however. Well then, just how big is the government information behemoth? No one really knows. There have been efforts to determine this, but without much success. On any given day, you can develop any given set of figures. In his 1971 dissertation, a Ph.D candidate in communications who formerly worked for the U.S. Information Agency put a $300 million annual price tag on Federal Government information efforts. In 1973. when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was ordered to cut back on its public affairs payroll, it had a budget of $175 million and counted 1,200 people. The Department of Defense public affairs budget for FY 1975 was recently pegged at "$24,508 million". . . whatever that means. The Civil Service Commission officially classifies slightly more than 6,000 Federal employees in two major public affairs/information categories. However, there may be as many as three times that amount who perform government information tasks under a whole host of other job titles. And remember, this is merely the Federal count. If we can agree that producing the printed word also is public information, then consider that the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the total Federal printing bill for FY 76 will exceed $1 billion. Also consider that the Government Printing Office last fiscal year billed its Customers, which are all Federal agencies, about $440 million. I grant you some of this money goes for nonprinted word items, but the bulk of it relates to Government publications and documents of one form or another. And to me, that is public information. Now that we have some grasp of how large the leviathan is, let us tum to the scope of Government public information. And to keep some
31
.-..blie Ilelatiolls lieview semblance of sanity, I will continue to relate what follows solely to the Federal Government. When you talk about the White House and the Congress, you have to keep in mind that political considerations are in the forefront of any information emanating from those entities. At the Government Printing Office, the "only" political influence we get is from 100 senators and 435 congressmen; the "only" government pressure we get is from the more than 100 Federal agencies that are our customers; the "only " spotlight shown upon us is from the American public that last year purchased more than 80 million, GPO-produced or contracted-for publications. What Are the Functions of Government Information People1 Generally speaking, government information is disseminated through press release, conference or briefing; audio-visual product; feature article; publication; exhibit; speech; etc. It services the needs of the general media as well as the vast trade press, along with the general public, of course. There are two phases of government information efforts - active and passive. When I was at the Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Transportation, we were literally making news all the time, so our "product output" was prodigious. That is the active phase. At the Government Printing Office, we are merely the world 's largest job printer that does not originate any publications on its own but rather prints solely on order from Our Federal agency customers. By the way, it might interest you to know that we contract out nearly two-thirds of all our work to private industry . Because of the nature of our business, GPO does not generate much news. Our primary information audience is the trade press, but I do get a fair number of inquiries about GPO from the general press. The magnitude of our manpower and equipment staggers people. However, GPO has had an information problem. My so-called friends tell me 1 am part of that problem . For many years, GPO literally was a closed corporation, which developed a bad taste in the mouths of the media. Before I was hired two years ago, I was told it was not unusual for reporters to have their queries answered either with a disconnected telephone or a gruff voice growling, "Why the hell do you need to know than" So, my job at GPO is a passive one of reopening channels of communication, and from time to time making the public aware of some of the things we are doing - and doing very well. In large agencies, with big information shops, we often had beats, just as the regular media did. In my present two-person shop, we do everything. Covering the Federal jungle are perhaps a couple or 3,000 newspeople . Simple arithmetic would indicate adequate coverage of the bureaucracy, but the truth is that many of the bureaus duplicate one another's coverage looking for that hometown angle. What happens is that some Federal agencies are over-eovered, many barely covered, some literally not covered
32
.nrornlatlon omeers at all. Some newspeople are very specialized, covering only certain agencies. Others like to specialize on Congress, the White House, and perhaps a few glamorous others. Some press pundit once noted that hordes of newspeople follow the boring routine of a political candidate, while less than a handful report regularly on the vast maze that is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Of course, the news .media is divided between print and electronic, with concentration of news forces sometimes causing stampedes and often causing duplication of stories. Government information comes under the direction of agency policymakers who, for the most part, are political appointees. A friend of mine called me last Friday to say he has just had his sixth boss in as many years. He is a career Civil Service employee; his bosses are political appointees. At most Federal agencies, then, the highest ranking information official has definite political allegiances, and that person generally sets the information policy. Those who implement that policy are Civil Service careerists, such as my friend. Although I set the information policy, I also implement it, and yet I am a careerist. The political appointees, often called Schedule C's, are close enough to the top to interpret the agency head's information wishes. The implementers, protected by Civil Service, sometimes are entrenched oldtimers who resist change, let alone political pressure. This often produces a tug of war, which at times actually can be healthy. Too few top information managers have extensive, or even current, experience in the media. Many have public relations, not public information, backgrounds. The criteria for qualifications for information jobs are based on obscure standards, especially for top managers. In my judgment, our mission should be public information. not public relations. Information Programs Impeded from Within We have internal bureaucratic situations that hinder our professional efforts a great deal. Because our job standards are weak, because we are subject to political as well as nonprofessional pressures, because there is no career development or recognition for Government information careerists, We often are ranked judgmentally somewhat over clerical help. In short, to altogether too much of the bureaucracy, the Madison Avenue tarnish has never worn off. Without professional recognition, we have very little to say about the proper role of public information. Because of this, we become after-the-fact operators, expected to put out fires started by others, or to implement information about programs that we strongly feel will not stand the muster of the media. We can operate more efficiently as purveyors of preventative ~aintenance via policy guidance before programs are approved for Implementation.
33
Because of this second-class status, we are sometimes more of a hindrance to reporters than a help . There are even times when we just cannot tell the reporter everything. Our program people just .cannot understand that the media will forgive mistakes. but will long remember lies. The fear of fallibility is awesome in Government. but it can be overcome. When I was at the Federal Aviation Administration. I was privileged to have been the press officer on the eight-man task force that developed the original anti-skyjacking program. We established a great partnership with the media based on credibility because we admitted outright that we had a system that was not foolproof. And whenever we invoked security restrict ions, we explained why. Because consideration for the media came at the inception of the program, they were as helpful to me as I was to them. I am convinced that one of the reasons we are not very often consulted prefacto is because of the fear of finking. Yes, we are often accused of being untrustworthy because we are in bed with the media, There is no doubt a government information person has leaked something to the media at some time. But I know of one occasion when that accusation was made. and it was later discovered that the disclosure came from the accuser himself. a program manager who had too much to drink at a cocktail party , In the four government information jobs I have had, not once was I asked about being an expert in the agency's business , Our role as government information professionals is that of knowing how to facilitate the flow of unmassaged data to the media and the public . Just as important is our ability to obtain feedback . We will find the agency experts. As you can now see, our own internal struggles may well explain our biggest external problems. We just are not given enough opportunity to anticipate media problems before they arise, or to have our voice heard by top managers, As my boss at GPO has said numerous times. we never seem to have enough time to do the job right, but we sure have plenty of time to rectify it. Speaking of Public Printer Tom McCormick and doing a job right, he once sat down with a local reporter for a "personal" interview following a trade association speech . None of the reporter's questions dealt with the speech but rather with the public printer's views of Washington. Although a Presidential appointee, my boss had come right out of industry and did not have any political connections. At one point, the reporter asked McCormick his salary. Since this is a matter of public record. my boss did not hesitate to say, "$38,500," Several minutes later, the reporter asked what my boss made at his industry job. "Let's say it was more than I now make," McCormick replied, The next morning, the headline on the story read: "U.S. salary scale for public printer finds him riled. " First paragraph: 'Thomas F, McCormick. the public printer of the United States, isn't very happy with his $38,500 annual salary ," What McCormick has said, and he was correctly quoted later on in the story, was that "the top salaries in all branches of government have been frozen. It's a strong incentive to leave and go into private industry." That was just an offhand remark, and McCormick was
34
1....orn.atJo..
omeers
simply making the point that such salary levels also kept some good private industry talent from coming into Govemment. But he never "complained," as the reporter implied in reaching for a lead. Believe me, 1 have seen him riled. As a matter of fact, you had to go down to the tenth paragraph to discover that McCormick was in town to make a speech. If you did not know better, you would have thought the first nine paragraphs dealt with his speech, as a trade newsletter editor later did. 1 find it hard to believe any sane reporter could con readers into believing the public printer of the United States came all the way to Cleveland to complain about his salary. If the story sounds familiar, it appeared on page 14-A - of last June 24's edition - of Cleveland's only moming newspaper, the Plain Dealer. The active information phase is not without its sagas. When 1 arrived in Washington to work at the Department of Justice, my first assignment was as press officer at a detention facility for some 600 persons arrested for trying to storm the Pentagon. The first two days, no media were allowed inside - and 1 will be glad to describe how demonstrators perform with and without the media around. Anyhow, on the third day, all media were invited in. 1 noticed one radio reporter interviewing a group of hippies on their reaction to the detention center. They gave a very lurid description, none of which was true because 1 had been on the site ever since the first detainee arrived. Generally I do not like to interfere with media coverage, but when I got the chance 1 quietly tried to tell the reporter the truth. He glowered at me, called me a govemment "flak," packed up his recorder, and announced I could hear the best interview in town that night. As he headed away, 1 could not resist calling after him: "1 guess it doesn't matter that the people you just interviewed are visitors who arrived only a few hours ago, not detainees." No, it did not interest him and the interviews indeed were broadcast that night. Friends or Foes? So, what is our relationship with the media then7 Generally, it is not the I-hate-your-guts situation you might think. Oh, there are those situations which 1 tend to believe occur when one or both sides are incompetent or ill-qualified. Too often, both sides are misjudged by White House press Conference performances. There are multitudes of us on both sides who have totally different relationships. Sometimes we can help the media; other times the media has to develop its own sources in the agency. My philosophy is to be as open as I can and more open with reporters I know. At Penn State last year, 1 told a joumalism seminar that there are times 1 will not volunteer information unless in response to a direct question because I have had my fingers bumed. I do not feel 1 am withholding information - it is there for the asking. 1 just do not believe I should be doing a reporter's work for him or her.
35
'-HbUe Ilelatlolls Ilevlew On orders, I am sometimes not able to be as direct as I would like. But that does not give me the heartburn you might think. We all do this in our everyday lives . We censor, literally, what we say to family, friends, etc . I think 1 can honestly say 1 have not intentionally misled reporters. I will do my share if they do theirs. If the charge is made that as a result of this attitude the public is deprived of knowledge, then 1 merely challenge the media to publish everything that comes into its possession. It is just not all that puritanical. I will own up to one drawback, however. There are times I am afflicted with "euphemasia" in my work. But generally I try to do the best I can under all the constraints, both internal and external. There are times I have been able to answer inquiries on my own. Other times , I am able to direct the newsperson to the source itself. I don't know all the answers, but I know who does . I do not have nightmares over adversary relationships with the media if we understand that term. If by adversary you as a newsperson challenge my information to prove it right or wrong, fine with me. But if you come in with a preconceived notion and try only to substantiate that by biased questioning, then I rear up. In other words, I do not subscribe to advocacy journalism. There are some newspersons in Washington, and other cities, whom I trust implicitly. I have told them things in confidence because I wanted to see them have a complete understanding of a program and get a good, accurate story. And they have respected that confidence. Others I answer very guardedly because in past dealings 1have been had. I usually assume a reporter is competent and wants to be fair - and this can quickly be discerned in only a few minutes of give and take. But I do not ask for credentials - and neither does the reporter. In Washington, however, you quickly get to know one another's reputation. I venture to say there is the same degree of excellence - and incompetence - in the nation's capital as you would find, say, in Cleveland . Media's Shortcomings I honestly believe the media is just not equipped to adequately cover government. Part of the media problem is that is just does not understand the vast bureaucracy. Human nature being what it is, we tend to suspect and treat with fear that which we do not understand, and that's sometimes how the government is reported . Bureaus in Washington are understaffed, but I hear time and again from my friends in those bureaus that their editors back home are overstuffed. Good stories developed on the Washington beat are desensitized back home unless there is a local angle. This creates a tendency to overreport the wrong things because of inadequate value judgments. A Los Angeles Times editorial writer has commented : "If America is a sick and corrupt society, it is only by comparison to the standards that we set for ourselves, not by comparison to reality as it exists now, or ever has existed, anywhere in the world ."
36
IlirornlutJOII Omeers Too many reporters who do work their Federal beats barely scratch the surface, and without a government information person to guide them they miss many good stories. They become slaves to press releases, recordings, and pap-filled news conferences. Well, I have taken a long time to answer the question about "friends or foes" in government/press relations. It is a complex question, as I have tried to point out, but the simple answer is that too often we are foes when we should be friends. Unfortunately, we spend too much time pointing fingers of blame at one another, and not enough time recognizing that we need each other. Let's admit we both share blame . With that out of our system, the very next step is for us to seek common ways of improving not only our mutual relationship but our mutual professionalism. Both government information professionals and news media professionals need more training. Government is too vast and complex in 1976 to deal with it by 1926 standards. You just cannot keep up with government today by the old fashioned, seat-of-the-pants osmosis of yesteryear. The world may pass us both by with that kind of myopia. Few large media organizations adequately train their people, nor do they encourage or reward this. When I made that statement last year before the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, I got educated very qUickly by officials of several medium and small size newspapers who outlined the training they give their young people. But that is just the point - what about the large metropolitan papers7 And at what stage are you too old to train 7 Never , as far as I am concerned . Mark Talisman, that peripatetic genius from Cleveland, who served for 14 of his 35 years as administrative aide to Congressman Charles Vanik, conducts a special course at Harvard to acquaint freshmen members of Congress with the Federal bureaucracy . I suggest a similar course for the media. Too often , reporters become recorders and never do understand the "big picture ." When former Cleveland news editor Nat Howard retired, I remember his complaint that he was so occupied with daily editions that he discovered he lacked perspective. There is another aspect to this. Why not pass on the benefits of training and experience7 And I do not mean just internally. More news media print as well as electronic - should make an effort to have staffers lecture to students at the high school as well as college level. I know this is being done in Cleveland, but there is room for more. The February 28 issue of Editor and Publisher carried an item on page 28 which stated: "Newspapers have been sending staff people to the School of Journalism at Ohio State University to help teach graduate students." Why is this so specia17 Why is this not an everyday occurrence at every educational leve17 Why not work With area colleges and high schools for a steady stream of guest lectures by Youexperts in the media7 Through our newly-created National Association of Government Communicators, we hope to develop a structured training program not
:17
'-nblle Ilelatlolls lieview only by seminars and workshops but also in conjunction with universities. At least government attempts to indoctrinate its help. My professional development chairman has just presented an outline that includes, among many fascinat ing proposals, a plan for us to author a textbook on government information. And we are not stopping there. We plan to help universities structure credit courses that are relevant to government public information . We plan to create a speakers bureau so universities may draw on our talent. While we will start this program in Washington, we hope to offer it to the many chapters that will be developed on behalf of our association throughout the country. Some of us were blessed with relevant instruction, and we want to pay back the favor. By the way, our association is the only one encompassing all information skills at the Federal, state, and local government level. Although we are only three-and-one-half months old, we are past the Sao-member mark. Our goal is 1,000 this year, mainly in the Washington, D.C., area. Inquiries come in every day. Just a few weeks ago, I was at an SDX dinner in Washington, D.C. , and met Bob McCord, SDX National President. I explained to him the aims of our association and admitted outright that I was patterning much of our effort after SOX. He wants to know more about us, and I believe our two groups will be working together in the very near future. When the media misses or misjudges its audience, or when Government has to make "perfectly clear" in second-day stories what should have been clear the first day, or misreads public reaction , both of us are in trouble. And who has to apply salve to the wound - the person who caused the problem in the first place, or the information person7 You win the kewpie doll for guessing the right answer. We all must accept constructive criticism. I do not claim to have the cure for these ailments . And therefore I am reminded of the elephant who fell in love with a butterfly . Frustrated by the hopelessness of the situation, the elephant consulted a wise old owl about his dilemma. "The answer is simple," the owl said. "You must change into a butterfly. " The elephant pondered this but remained perplexed . "I am willing, but how do I accomplish that?" he asked . "Ah." cooed the owl. "I did not say I knew how . All I do is make policy ."
38
Information Officers and Reporters: Friends or Foes? A leader in the projessionalization of government communications suggests that government information officers should view their mission as a commitment to public information rather than public relations. This shift in orientation, he says, might improve the relationship between the information specialist and the reporter who comes to him in search of information but is wary of becoming a "dumping ground" for publicity material. But the reporter, too, should not expect the information officer to do his reporting for him. Sometimes members of the media will have to develop their own sources within an agency in addition to asking for guidance from the information office. "We need each other," concludes David H. Brown, special assistant to the Public Printer of the United States. Mr. Brown has worked for the Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. He is the founding president of the National Association of Government Communicators. These remarks are excerpted from Mr. Brown's speech to the Cleveland chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists.
I
hope we can start by agreeing that communication is a two-way street. If we cannot understand that meaning, I fear we will be like the college freshman who admitted in English class that he had never read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" because he did not follow football. Also inherent in our understanding is that we dismiss preconceived notions and biases before we hear what message is being transmitted. I had a wonderful speech teacher at Cleveland College, Claire Henderleider, who
29
••..hlie Itelatlons Iteview etched into my memory a piece of valuable advice: "There are three sides to every issue - yours, mine, and the truth ." Having spent considerable time now reporting news and literally making it, my feet are firmly planted on both sides of the question . "Government Public Information and the Media - Friends or Foes7" I find myself appreciating each side more. I am well aware that your views and mine on this subject may not coincide, but that does not automatically mean one of us is right and the other wrong. I find one of the basic problems in government/press relations is that we are prone to challenge one another to mortal word duels because we cannot understand, or tolerate, the role of the other. We must cease and desist from stereotyping each other and using exceptions as the rule in our judgments. The media, for example , are portrayed as convinced that the government is run by incompetents trying to abscond with the till while trying to make the public believe everything is A-OK. On the other hand, there are those who picture government as being convinced the media is run either by radical liberals or conservatives who are to the right of Attila the Hun. So, the first thing to understand is the enormity of government information; the second will be to view the relative minuteness of the media trying to cover Federal agencies. Then I'll share with you some recommendations to make both of us do a better job. There is a portion of the U.S. Code that deals with Executive branch departments. Sandwiched in between the section which proh ibits detective agency employees from working for the Federal Government or the District of Columbia . and the section which provides compensation for Government experts, we find this little gem: No money appropriated by any act shall be used for the compensation of any publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Since most agencies disguise such appropriations, a problem develops . In any event , that law came into being on October 22, 1913. Nearly 60 years later, the House Committee on Government Operations recommended that the law be repealed because it "has acted to place dedicated public information personnel within the Civil Service in a status of illegitimacy. " No legislative effort has been made to repeal that 1913 law . So. there are those who feel we are still publicists or Federal flaks . They draw no distinction between publicity - which means to influence - and public information - which aims to inform. The Government Information Superstructure In order for us to explode that myth, let us apply the eyeglass to government in general, and information in particular. There may be only three branches of government. but each is honeycombed with beehives of information activity. The Executive Branch has the Wh ite House at centerstage. The supporting cast includes Cabinet-level departments, regulatory and independent
30
luforluatJou Omeers agencies, and the military (which is a vast information armada unto itself). Many of these entities have structured bureaus and the like, each with its own information capability. In addition, most agencies have regional headquarters throughout the country with autonomous information shops. The Legislative Branch contains not merely the Congress but the Library of Congress - obviously - the Government Printing Office - perhaps not so obviously - and the General Accounting Office. Then there is the Judicial Branch, featuring the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Washington Post once described as "one of the most secretive institutions in all government." If that labyrinth begins to boggle the mind, don't lose sight of the fact that so far I have only described the Federal Government. There are parallels at the state, county, and local level. Consider also that each of the ten major governmental categories and four levels I outlined have a variety of information specialists - print and electronic press officers; publications writers, editors, and designers; audiovisual specialists; speech writers; exhibits personnel; persons who answer public, congressional. and White House inquiries; etc. Some clearly carry the title of their job skill. Many others are euphemistically tucked away in the vast morass that is the government. Relatively few deal directly with the media, however. Well then, just how big is the government information behemoth? No one really knows. There have been efforts to determine this, but without much success. On any given day, you can develop any given set of figures. In his 1971 dissertation, a Ph.D candidate in communications who formerly worked for the U.S. Information Agency put a $300 million annual price tag on Federal Government information efforts. In 1973. when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was ordered to cut back on its public affairs payroll, it had a budget of $175 million and counted 1,200 people. The Department of Defense public affairs budget for FY 1975 was recently pegged at "$24,508 million". . . whatever that means. The Civil Service Commission officially classifies slightly more than 6,000 Federal employees in two major public affairs/information categories. However, there may be as many as three times that amount who perform government information tasks under a whole host of other job titles. And remember, this is merely the Federal count. If we can agree that producing the printed word also is public information, then consider that the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the total Federal printing bill for FY 76 will exceed $1 billion. Also consider that the Government Printing Office last fiscal year billed its Customers, which are all Federal agencies, about $440 million. I grant you some of this money goes for nonprinted word items, but the bulk of it relates to Government publications and documents of one form or another. And to me, that is public information. Now that we have some grasp of how large the leviathan is, let us tum to the scope of Government public information. And to keep some
31
.-..blie Ilelatiolls lieview semblance of sanity, I will continue to relate what follows solely to the Federal Government. When you talk about the White House and the Congress, you have to keep in mind that political considerations are in the forefront of any information emanating from those entities. At the Government Printing Office, the "only" political influence we get is from 100 senators and 435 congressmen; the "only" government pressure we get is from the more than 100 Federal agencies that are our customers; the "only " spotlight shown upon us is from the American public that last year purchased more than 80 million, GPO-produced or contracted-for publications. What Are the Functions of Government Information People1 Generally speaking, government information is disseminated through press release, conference or briefing; audio-visual product; feature article; publication; exhibit; speech; etc. It services the needs of the general media as well as the vast trade press, along with the general public, of course. There are two phases of government information efforts - active and passive. When I was at the Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Transportation, we were literally making news all the time, so our "product output" was prodigious. That is the active phase. At the Government Printing Office, we are merely the world 's largest job printer that does not originate any publications on its own but rather prints solely on order from Our Federal agency customers. By the way, it might interest you to know that we contract out nearly two-thirds of all our work to private industry . Because of the nature of our business, GPO does not generate much news. Our primary information audience is the trade press, but I do get a fair number of inquiries about GPO from the general press. The magnitude of our manpower and equipment staggers people. However, GPO has had an information problem. My so-called friends tell me 1 am part of that problem . For many years, GPO literally was a closed corporation, which developed a bad taste in the mouths of the media. Before I was hired two years ago, I was told it was not unusual for reporters to have their queries answered either with a disconnected telephone or a gruff voice growling, "Why the hell do you need to know than" So, my job at GPO is a passive one of reopening channels of communication, and from time to time making the public aware of some of the things we are doing - and doing very well. In large agencies, with big information shops, we often had beats, just as the regular media did. In my present two-person shop, we do everything. Covering the Federal jungle are perhaps a couple or 3,000 newspeople . Simple arithmetic would indicate adequate coverage of the bureaucracy, but the truth is that many of the bureaus duplicate one another's coverage looking for that hometown angle. What happens is that some Federal agencies are over-eovered, many barely covered, some literally not covered
32
.nrornlatlon omeers at all. Some newspeople are very specialized, covering only certain agencies. Others like to specialize on Congress, the White House, and perhaps a few glamorous others. Some press pundit once noted that hordes of newspeople follow the boring routine of a political candidate, while less than a handful report regularly on the vast maze that is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Of course, the news .media is divided between print and electronic, with concentration of news forces sometimes causing stampedes and often causing duplication of stories. Government information comes under the direction of agency policymakers who, for the most part, are political appointees. A friend of mine called me last Friday to say he has just had his sixth boss in as many years. He is a career Civil Service employee; his bosses are political appointees. At most Federal agencies, then, the highest ranking information official has definite political allegiances, and that person generally sets the information policy. Those who implement that policy are Civil Service careerists, such as my friend. Although I set the information policy, I also implement it, and yet I am a careerist. The political appointees, often called Schedule C's, are close enough to the top to interpret the agency head's information wishes. The implementers, protected by Civil Service, sometimes are entrenched oldtimers who resist change, let alone political pressure. This often produces a tug of war, which at times actually can be healthy. Too few top information managers have extensive, or even current, experience in the media. Many have public relations, not public information, backgrounds. The criteria for qualifications for information jobs are based on obscure standards, especially for top managers. In my judgment, our mission should be public information. not public relations. Information Programs Impeded from Within We have internal bureaucratic situations that hinder our professional efforts a great deal. Because our job standards are weak, because we are subject to political as well as nonprofessional pressures, because there is no career development or recognition for Government information careerists, We often are ranked judgmentally somewhat over clerical help. In short, to altogether too much of the bureaucracy, the Madison Avenue tarnish has never worn off. Without professional recognition, we have very little to say about the proper role of public information. Because of this, we become after-the-fact operators, expected to put out fires started by others, or to implement information about programs that we strongly feel will not stand the muster of the media. We can operate more efficiently as purveyors of preventative ~aintenance via policy guidance before programs are approved for Implementation.
33
Because of this second-class status, we are sometimes more of a hindrance to reporters than a help . There are even times when we just cannot tell the reporter everything. Our program people just .cannot understand that the media will forgive mistakes. but will long remember lies. The fear of fallibility is awesome in Government. but it can be overcome. When I was at the Federal Aviation Administration. I was privileged to have been the press officer on the eight-man task force that developed the original anti-skyjacking program. We established a great partnership with the media based on credibility because we admitted outright that we had a system that was not foolproof. And whenever we invoked security restrict ions, we explained why. Because consideration for the media came at the inception of the program, they were as helpful to me as I was to them. I am convinced that one of the reasons we are not very often consulted prefacto is because of the fear of finking. Yes, we are often accused of being untrustworthy because we are in bed with the media, There is no doubt a government information person has leaked something to the media at some time. But I know of one occasion when that accusation was made. and it was later discovered that the disclosure came from the accuser himself. a program manager who had too much to drink at a cocktail party , In the four government information jobs I have had, not once was I asked about being an expert in the agency's business , Our role as government information professionals is that of knowing how to facilitate the flow of unmassaged data to the media and the public . Just as important is our ability to obtain feedback . We will find the agency experts. As you can now see, our own internal struggles may well explain our biggest external problems. We just are not given enough opportunity to anticipate media problems before they arise, or to have our voice heard by top managers, As my boss at GPO has said numerous times. we never seem to have enough time to do the job right, but we sure have plenty of time to rectify it. Speaking of Public Printer Tom McCormick and doing a job right, he once sat down with a local reporter for a "personal" interview following a trade association speech . None of the reporter's questions dealt with the speech but rather with the public printer's views of Washington. Although a Presidential appointee, my boss had come right out of industry and did not have any political connections. At one point, the reporter asked McCormick his salary. Since this is a matter of public record. my boss did not hesitate to say, "$38,500," Several minutes later, the reporter asked what my boss made at his industry job. "Let's say it was more than I now make," McCormick replied, The next morning, the headline on the story read: "U.S. salary scale for public printer finds him riled. " First paragraph: 'Thomas F, McCormick. the public printer of the United States, isn't very happy with his $38,500 annual salary ," What McCormick has said, and he was correctly quoted later on in the story, was that "the top salaries in all branches of government have been frozen. It's a strong incentive to leave and go into private industry." That was just an offhand remark, and McCormick was
34
1....orn.atJo..
omeers
simply making the point that such salary levels also kept some good private industry talent from coming into Govemment. But he never "complained," as the reporter implied in reaching for a lead. Believe me, 1 have seen him riled. As a matter of fact, you had to go down to the tenth paragraph to discover that McCormick was in town to make a speech. If you did not know better, you would have thought the first nine paragraphs dealt with his speech, as a trade newsletter editor later did. 1 find it hard to believe any sane reporter could con readers into believing the public printer of the United States came all the way to Cleveland to complain about his salary. If the story sounds familiar, it appeared on page 14-A - of last June 24's edition - of Cleveland's only moming newspaper, the Plain Dealer. The active information phase is not without its sagas. When 1 arrived in Washington to work at the Department of Justice, my first assignment was as press officer at a detention facility for some 600 persons arrested for trying to storm the Pentagon. The first two days, no media were allowed inside - and 1 will be glad to describe how demonstrators perform with and without the media around. Anyhow, on the third day, all media were invited in. 1 noticed one radio reporter interviewing a group of hippies on their reaction to the detention center. They gave a very lurid description, none of which was true because 1 had been on the site ever since the first detainee arrived. Generally I do not like to interfere with media coverage, but when I got the chance 1 quietly tried to tell the reporter the truth. He glowered at me, called me a govemment "flak," packed up his recorder, and announced I could hear the best interview in town that night. As he headed away, 1 could not resist calling after him: "1 guess it doesn't matter that the people you just interviewed are visitors who arrived only a few hours ago, not detainees." No, it did not interest him and the interviews indeed were broadcast that night. Friends or Foes? So, what is our relationship with the media then7 Generally, it is not the I-hate-your-guts situation you might think. Oh, there are those situations which 1 tend to believe occur when one or both sides are incompetent or ill-qualified. Too often, both sides are misjudged by White House press Conference performances. There are multitudes of us on both sides who have totally different relationships. Sometimes we can help the media; other times the media has to develop its own sources in the agency. My philosophy is to be as open as I can and more open with reporters I know. At Penn State last year, 1 told a joumalism seminar that there are times 1 will not volunteer information unless in response to a direct question because I have had my fingers bumed. I do not feel 1 am withholding information - it is there for the asking. 1 just do not believe I should be doing a reporter's work for him or her.
35
'-HbUe Ilelatlolls Ilevlew On orders, I am sometimes not able to be as direct as I would like. But that does not give me the heartburn you might think. We all do this in our everyday lives . We censor, literally, what we say to family, friends, etc . I think 1 can honestly say 1 have not intentionally misled reporters. I will do my share if they do theirs. If the charge is made that as a result of this attitude the public is deprived of knowledge, then 1 merely challenge the media to publish everything that comes into its possession. It is just not all that puritanical. I will own up to one drawback, however. There are times I am afflicted with "euphemasia" in my work. But generally I try to do the best I can under all the constraints, both internal and external. There are times I have been able to answer inquiries on my own. Other times , I am able to direct the newsperson to the source itself. I don't know all the answers, but I know who does . I do not have nightmares over adversary relationships with the media if we understand that term. If by adversary you as a newsperson challenge my information to prove it right or wrong, fine with me. But if you come in with a preconceived notion and try only to substantiate that by biased questioning, then I rear up. In other words, I do not subscribe to advocacy journalism. There are some newspersons in Washington, and other cities, whom I trust implicitly. I have told them things in confidence because I wanted to see them have a complete understanding of a program and get a good, accurate story. And they have respected that confidence. Others I answer very guardedly because in past dealings 1have been had. I usually assume a reporter is competent and wants to be fair - and this can quickly be discerned in only a few minutes of give and take. But I do not ask for credentials - and neither does the reporter. In Washington, however, you quickly get to know one another's reputation. I venture to say there is the same degree of excellence - and incompetence - in the nation's capital as you would find, say, in Cleveland . Media's Shortcomings I honestly believe the media is just not equipped to adequately cover government. Part of the media problem is that is just does not understand the vast bureaucracy. Human nature being what it is, we tend to suspect and treat with fear that which we do not understand, and that's sometimes how the government is reported . Bureaus in Washington are understaffed, but I hear time and again from my friends in those bureaus that their editors back home are overstuffed. Good stories developed on the Washington beat are desensitized back home unless there is a local angle. This creates a tendency to overreport the wrong things because of inadequate value judgments. A Los Angeles Times editorial writer has commented : "If America is a sick and corrupt society, it is only by comparison to the standards that we set for ourselves, not by comparison to reality as it exists now, or ever has existed, anywhere in the world ."
36
IlirornlutJOII Omeers Too many reporters who do work their Federal beats barely scratch the surface, and without a government information person to guide them they miss many good stories. They become slaves to press releases, recordings, and pap-filled news conferences. Well, I have taken a long time to answer the question about "friends or foes" in government/press relations. It is a complex question, as I have tried to point out, but the simple answer is that too often we are foes when we should be friends. Unfortunately, we spend too much time pointing fingers of blame at one another, and not enough time recognizing that we need each other. Let's admit we both share blame . With that out of our system, the very next step is for us to seek common ways of improving not only our mutual relationship but our mutual professionalism. Both government information professionals and news media professionals need more training. Government is too vast and complex in 1976 to deal with it by 1926 standards. You just cannot keep up with government today by the old fashioned, seat-of-the-pants osmosis of yesteryear. The world may pass us both by with that kind of myopia. Few large media organizations adequately train their people, nor do they encourage or reward this. When I made that statement last year before the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, I got educated very qUickly by officials of several medium and small size newspapers who outlined the training they give their young people. But that is just the point - what about the large metropolitan papers7 And at what stage are you too old to train 7 Never , as far as I am concerned . Mark Talisman, that peripatetic genius from Cleveland, who served for 14 of his 35 years as administrative aide to Congressman Charles Vanik, conducts a special course at Harvard to acquaint freshmen members of Congress with the Federal bureaucracy . I suggest a similar course for the media. Too often , reporters become recorders and never do understand the "big picture ." When former Cleveland news editor Nat Howard retired, I remember his complaint that he was so occupied with daily editions that he discovered he lacked perspective. There is another aspect to this. Why not pass on the benefits of training and experience7 And I do not mean just internally. More news media print as well as electronic - should make an effort to have staffers lecture to students at the high school as well as college level. I know this is being done in Cleveland, but there is room for more. The February 28 issue of Editor and Publisher carried an item on page 28 which stated: "Newspapers have been sending staff people to the School of Journalism at Ohio State University to help teach graduate students." Why is this so specia17 Why is this not an everyday occurrence at every educational leve17 Why not work With area colleges and high schools for a steady stream of guest lectures by Youexperts in the media7 Through our newly-created National Association of Government Communicators, we hope to develop a structured training program not
:17
'-nblle Ilelatlolls lieview only by seminars and workshops but also in conjunction with universities. At least government attempts to indoctrinate its help. My professional development chairman has just presented an outline that includes, among many fascinat ing proposals, a plan for us to author a textbook on government information. And we are not stopping there. We plan to help universities structure credit courses that are relevant to government public information . We plan to create a speakers bureau so universities may draw on our talent. While we will start this program in Washington, we hope to offer it to the many chapters that will be developed on behalf of our association throughout the country. Some of us were blessed with relevant instruction, and we want to pay back the favor. By the way, our association is the only one encompassing all information skills at the Federal, state, and local government level. Although we are only three-and-one-half months old, we are past the Sao-member mark. Our goal is 1,000 this year, mainly in the Washington, D.C., area. Inquiries come in every day. Just a few weeks ago, I was at an SDX dinner in Washington, D.C. , and met Bob McCord, SDX National President. I explained to him the aims of our association and admitted outright that I was patterning much of our effort after SOX. He wants to know more about us, and I believe our two groups will be working together in the very near future. When the media misses or misjudges its audience, or when Government has to make "perfectly clear" in second-day stories what should have been clear the first day, or misreads public reaction , both of us are in trouble. And who has to apply salve to the wound - the person who caused the problem in the first place, or the information person7 You win the kewpie doll for guessing the right answer. We all must accept constructive criticism. I do not claim to have the cure for these ailments . And therefore I am reminded of the elephant who fell in love with a butterfly . Frustrated by the hopelessness of the situation, the elephant consulted a wise old owl about his dilemma. "The answer is simple," the owl said. "You must change into a butterfly. " The elephant pondered this but remained perplexed . "I am willing, but how do I accomplish that?" he asked . "Ah." cooed the owl. "I did not say I knew how . All I do is make policy ."
38