{"title":"Protecting the Watchdog: Using the Freedom of Information Act to Preference the Press","authors":"Erin C. Carroll","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2552794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The fourth estate is undergoing dramatic changes. Many newspaper reporters, already surrounded by a growing number of empty desks, are shifting their focus away from costly investigative reporting and towards amassing Twitter followers and writing the perfect “share line.” Newspapers’ budgets can no longer robustly support accountability journalism and pitching fights against the government. And so, while this busier and noisier media environment may have a desirable democratizing effect — more of us are able to participate in analyzing, debating, and perhaps even making the news — it has not succeeded in filling a role that print journalists have traditionally played well — keeping watch on the government. In order to perpetuate its historical role as watchdog, the fourth estate needs fortification. This fortification should come in the form of legal preferences for the press. Providing such preferences is not new, but it arguably has not been done in a significant way since postal subsidies were granted to newspapers in the colonial era. Today, with few exceptions, the law generally treats journalists just like any other citizens and news organizations like any other business. This article proposes a new way to preference the press — one that would not involve direct subsidies or discriminating between old media and new. Instead, it would give journalists a commodity that is fundamental to their work: information. To preference the press, this article looks to the Freedom of Information Act, the law governing when and how the executive branch discloses information to the public. While in theory the law facilitates the press’s access to vast amounts of information in the hands of the executive branch, implementation of FOIA has, since it was passed in 1966, been fraught with problems. Agencies routinely take months and even years to respond to journalists’ requests, making the process incompatible with a news cycle that is spinning ever faster. This article proposes focusing on FOIA’s expedited processing provisions to prioritize journalists’ requests over those of other requesters, expedite agency fulfillment of them, and ease the press’s ability to challenge late, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory disclosures. It argues that any journalist filing a FOIA request seeking expedited processing should presumptively go to the front of the queue. At that point, there would be firm deadlines (where none exist now) for providing the journalist with the information requested. These small but significant changes to an already established provision of FOIA could help the media better serve as a watchdog at a time when that role needs protecting.","PeriodicalId":171535,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","volume":"2015 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2552794","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
The fourth estate is undergoing dramatic changes. Many newspaper reporters, already surrounded by a growing number of empty desks, are shifting their focus away from costly investigative reporting and towards amassing Twitter followers and writing the perfect “share line.” Newspapers’ budgets can no longer robustly support accountability journalism and pitching fights against the government. And so, while this busier and noisier media environment may have a desirable democratizing effect — more of us are able to participate in analyzing, debating, and perhaps even making the news — it has not succeeded in filling a role that print journalists have traditionally played well — keeping watch on the government. In order to perpetuate its historical role as watchdog, the fourth estate needs fortification. This fortification should come in the form of legal preferences for the press. Providing such preferences is not new, but it arguably has not been done in a significant way since postal subsidies were granted to newspapers in the colonial era. Today, with few exceptions, the law generally treats journalists just like any other citizens and news organizations like any other business. This article proposes a new way to preference the press — one that would not involve direct subsidies or discriminating between old media and new. Instead, it would give journalists a commodity that is fundamental to their work: information. To preference the press, this article looks to the Freedom of Information Act, the law governing when and how the executive branch discloses information to the public. While in theory the law facilitates the press’s access to vast amounts of information in the hands of the executive branch, implementation of FOIA has, since it was passed in 1966, been fraught with problems. Agencies routinely take months and even years to respond to journalists’ requests, making the process incompatible with a news cycle that is spinning ever faster. This article proposes focusing on FOIA’s expedited processing provisions to prioritize journalists’ requests over those of other requesters, expedite agency fulfillment of them, and ease the press’s ability to challenge late, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory disclosures. It argues that any journalist filing a FOIA request seeking expedited processing should presumptively go to the front of the queue. At that point, there would be firm deadlines (where none exist now) for providing the journalist with the information requested. These small but significant changes to an already established provision of FOIA could help the media better serve as a watchdog at a time when that role needs protecting.
第四阶层正在经历巨大的变化。许多已经被越来越多的空办公桌包围的报纸记者,正在将他们的注意力从昂贵的调查报道转移到积累Twitter粉丝和撰写完美的“分享线”上。报纸的预算不再能够有力地支持问责新闻和与政府的斗争。因此,尽管这种更繁忙、更喧嚣的媒体环境可能会产生令人满意的民主化效果——我们中的更多人能够参与分析、辩论,甚至可能制造新闻——但它并没有成功地填补印刷记者传统上扮演的角色——监督政府。为了延续其作为看门狗的历史角色,第四等级需要加强。这种强化应该以法律上对媒体的偏好的形式出现。提供这样的优惠并不是什么新鲜事,但可以说,自从殖民时代向报纸提供邮政补贴以来,这种做法并没有取得重大进展。今天,除了少数例外,法律一般将记者视为其他公民,将新闻机构视为其他企业。本文提出了一种新的方式来优先考虑新闻界——一种不涉及直接补贴或区分新旧媒体的方式。相反,它将为记者提供一种对他们的工作至关重要的商品:信息。为了偏袒新闻界,本文参考了《信息自由法》(Freedom of Information Act),该法规定了行政部门何时以及如何向公众披露信息。虽然从理论上讲,《信息自由法》有利于媒体获取掌握在行政部门手中的大量信息,但自1966年通过以来,《信息自由法》的实施就充满了问题。通讯社通常需要几个月甚至几年的时间来回应记者的要求,这使得这一过程与新闻周期越来越快的情况不相容。本文建议将重点放在《信息自由法》的快速处理条款上,优先考虑记者的请求,而不是其他请求者的请求,加快机构对这些请求的满足,并减轻媒体对迟来、不完整或不令人满意的披露提出质疑的能力。它认为,任何记者提交《信息自由法》请求,寻求快速处理,都应该排在队伍的前面。到那时,向记者提供所要求的信息就会有明确的最后期限(现在还没有)。这些对已确立的《信息自由法》条款虽小但意义重大的修改,可能有助于媒体在需要保护的时候更好地发挥监督者的作用。