DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROPOSAL WOULD FORCE JOURNALISTS TO USE GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS, SOFTWARE

[Geee]

Human Events:

Imagine the White House ordering all media organizations to remove their computers, software and cell phones from government offices and installing state-owned equipment and software. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the problematic possibilities with that sort of arrangement.

Yet, that’s exactly what the Department of Labor is proposing (and by “proposing” we mean the Obama administration initially “told” media organizations about the impending change without allowing for any public comment.).

It currently works like this: Before the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its monthly unemployment numbers, a select group of journalists are locked in a room and given the data a half-an-hour in advance. Reporters synthesize the information, write their stories on their own computers and wait for a Department of Labor employee to turn on the switch, which allows them to file simultaneously. Why all the restrictions? These are market-moving numbers, closely monitored by investors, and leaks could offer an unfair advantage.

What BLS wants to do now is have those journalists gather as usual in the lock-down room, but use government-issued hardware and software.

The question is, should efforts to contain lock-down room leaks be an excuse to encroach on press freedom? When speaking on the matter during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee the week of June 4, Bloomberg News Executive Editor Dan Moss said that the BLS proposal “threatens the First Amendment because it would literally open the reporters’ notebooks,” by controlling the computer.

The Labor Department dismisses those concerns, explaining during a conference call that it is “totally leveling the playing field,” yet a spokesperson could not guarantee that media outlets would have the same connectivity.

Anyway, if leveling the playing field were the true goal, the BLS would simply release the raw data to the public without any filters.

More likely, the BLS, which has failed to offer any cogent argument for the policy change, is trying to control the political message and the flow of data. And even if it isn’t, the BLS—fairly or not—should be viewed more and more skeptically.