By Wayne Pereanu
For journalists covering federal agencies, the first words that come to mind when thinking about a public information officer (or PIO) may be “censorship,” “roadblock,” or “message control.” When a journalist encounters a PIO who denies access to a source of information, it’s easy to see where this bias can come from.
But Rick Borchelt, director of communications and public affairs for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, provided a different perspective during DCSWA’s 2018 Professional Development Day afternoon plenary talk. He argued that journalists and PIOs share a still-relevant common ancestry. And this relationship may be best viewed as non-adversarial, between colleagues who ultimately share many of the same values, Borchelt said.
Borchelt’s talk provided a historical context that blurred the line between early science journalism and PIOs, described where the role of a PIO came from, and explored what it means to be a PIO today. To accomplish this, he shared historical anecdotes and personal reflections from his career as a communications officer at various federal agencies. Borchelt also implored the audience to quit using the term PIO, as it does not reflect an actual job description, but instead connotes more of a tribal identity.
Borchelt first brought us to the years after World War I to investigate how early science journalism fell somewhere between unbiased objectivity and advocacy. During this time, organizations such as Science Service (today known as Society for Science & the Public) formed with the goal of informing, educating, and inspiring the public. In step with this, science journalism of the era promoted science in a positive light, rather than being critical or objective.
Borchelt illustrated this point by invoking a compelling example: the 1923 Pulitzer Prize in journalism. Alva Johnson earned this prestigious award for his report that simply covered the 1922 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting. It would be years before science journalism would aim to be unbiased and objective, rather than just positive coverage. This historical analysis may be surprising, as Borchelt noted that early science journalism was closer to what some may think of as a PIO’s role.
Having established the principles of early science journalism, Borchelt next examined the origin of the PIO position. He went through examples of early U.S. propaganda efforts during World War I, as well as the weaponization of information by Germans in World War II. In response to these events, U.S. legislators passed the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act of 1952. The Act attempted to proscribe propaganda by defining improper types of publicity for federal government agencies.
According to Borchelt, this led to the creation of a middle-of-the-road position. Here a federal officer—many times a former journalist—was in charge of putting out positive information about an agency while being careful to not violate the 1952 Act. This departure from impartial, objective reporting may be the clearest point where the positions of a journalist and a PIO may have diverged.
Finally, Borchelt explored what it currently means to be a PIO, and how that role relates to journalism. Borchelt made it clear that “there is no federal job category called public information officer. It’s a self-identification, a tribal identity, not a job description.”
Borchelt went on to define four aspects of this PIO tribal identity: PIOs don’t think that they are doing public relations, per se; they think they’re ultimately responsible to the public; they have considerable loyalty to their agency; They believe they are being helpful guides to agency information and resources, not roadblocks.
Borchelt pointed out that a journalist’s identity may share many of these features, and that these traits are likely conserved from the not-too-distant divergence of the two positions.
If the role of a journalist and a PIO are similar, then what could be leading to the conflict between these two positions? Borchelt addressed this by enumerating the constraints placed on a PIO at a federal agency. According to Borchelt, one of the first defining points occurred when President Reagan and his political leadership decided to silence all conversation about HIV and AIDs. To achieve this, federal agencies directed PIOs to restrict access to scientists and any related reports, including a moratorium on issuing press releases to journalists.
Bill Clinton would further bolster this approach to information control. His administration brought a fine-grained “message control” that subsequent administrations would continue to wield, Borchelt said. In fact, agencies would now typically make important communications decisions without consulting a PIO. Borchelt described these political constraints as a source of conflict between PIOs and journalists making requests of a federal agency. Despite having similar goals in an interaction, the PIO may simply be constrained from sharing certain information.
Borchelt concluded by recapping the idea of a common ancestry between journalists and those in a PIO position. He reiterated that the divergence of these roles has happened so recently that there is still considerable overlap in each party’s ultimate goals. And while this commonality may by obscured during individual interactions, an understanding of the PIO’s working constraints may help illuminate the two party’s collective interests. Borchelt raised the hope that recognizing this similarity may engender a greater sense of collegiality.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.