Dozens of journalism groups call for government transparency.

Editor’s note: After White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest wrote an op-ed Aug. 30 titled “Give Obama Credit for Government Transparency,” the Society of Professional Journalists began crafting the letter below to respond.

It’s signed by 40-plus groups, who are not all named here due to space, but one signatory is the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, of which the Weekly is a member.

Sept. 12, 2016

Dear Mr. Earnest,

Last December, a delegation representing more than 50 journalism and government accountability organizations met with you at the White House to express deep concern about, and urge greater openness and transparency from, the federal government.

The meeting followed at least five years of work done by various organizations to study government transparency and the role public information officers play in relaying important information to the American people.

In a recent New York Times letter to the editor, you urged journalists to give President Barack Obama credit for government transparency. You highlight some of the ways the Obama administration has improved transparency in the White House.

Yet, the 50-plus groups repeatedly outlined to the administration various ways transparency has gotten worse, including:

• Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people;

• Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines;

• Officials conveying information “on background,” refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking;

• Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.

• A continued lack of meaningful visual access to the president by an independent press pool.

You say in your op-ed that effective advocacy means giving credit where it is due.

That will happen when journalists believe meaningful improvements have been made.

The actions the Obama administration has taken to invite journalists to cover the president’s formal remarks at fundraisers, information being made available on data.gov and releasing names of White House visitors are all steps in the right direction.

But they’re not enough.

And we believe the problems outweigh what you are calling accomplishments.

We are extremely disappointed that, despite a promise to get back to us after that meeting at the White House on Dec. 15, 2015, we have yet to hear anything from you.

We are disappointed that, nine months later, nothing has improved.

We are disappointed that, as we rapidly approach the election of a new president, we cannot use the Obama Administration as an example of how it should be done.

To rephrase your last question – if this president’s transparency effort is such a disappointment and the press does not object, why would future administrations consider being more open?

But we do object. President Obama may be leaving the White House, but we aren’t going anywhere.

Our promise to the American people is to keep fighting for their right to know what their elected officials are up to – to keep fighting for information and images they need to know and see to live their best, most informed, lives as American citizens.

It’s the least we can do.

Sincerely,
Paul Fletcher President, Society of Professional Journalists

Other signatures include Reporters Without Borders; the Poynter Insitute; National Association of Black Journalists; National Association of Hispanic Journalists; National Federation of Press Women; National Press Photographers Association; Society of Environmental Journalists; Committee to Protect Journalists; Educations Writers Association; Asian American Journalists Association; Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association; Association of Alternative Newsmedia; and the National Scholastic Press Association.

Cc: President Barack Obama