The Future of Political Reporting Isn't

Three quick stories about government and politicians trying to control coverage.

The NYTimes reporter assigned to cover the Clintons, reports that one particular press aide at the Clinton Global Initiative was not only assigned to escort her to the restroom, "she waited outside the stall in the ladies' room."  Waiting at the restroom door in a crowded venue to escort her back to wherever the Clintons had gone I can almost understand.  But outside the stall door?  Seems more intimidating than helpful (or perhaps fearful that the reporter would slip a story past the normal review channels).  When Hilary's standard contract for giving speeches was leaked, it specified no press coverage or photography after a brief introduction (some speculated it was because she didn't want it to come out that she kept repeating the same speech to group after group). And the behavior isn't unique, the last few election cycles have provided a number of stories of press aides for Democratic candidates speaking at "fundraisers" of locking reporters in closets or restrooms.

Lack of press access at the White House has been a continuing drama over the last few years, to the point where the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) and major news organizations have filed a number of formal complaints about the lack of access to supposedly public events for both reporters and press photographers.  (My favorite was when a White House  ceremony promoting "transparency" was closed to the press).
The latest twist, though, is that the White House has started reviewing pool press reports before sending them out, and have insisted on the pool reporter making changes.  (The White House press office manages the email list of reporters and organizations that get the pool reports, and does the actual emailing.)

“The independence of the print pool reports is of utmost importance to us,” said Christi Parsons, a Los Angeles Times reporter who is the WHCA’s new president. “Our expectation is that the White House puts out the pool report and asks questions later.”

The issue is even more troubling given the fact that coverage of White House and Presidential events are increasingly restricted to the pool reporter.  Parsons added that she was assured this summer that the White House wouldn't meddle, but subsequent incidents show a White House still reviewing and insisting on changes (delaying release of the pool report by as much as a day).  Things have gotten to the point where the WHCA is investigating how it could manage pool report distribution itself, removing the White House press office from the process.

The third news item wasn't about the White House or political coverage explicitly, but still reflects a disturbing trend.  The US Forest Service (USFS), whose signs and statements keep telling us that the national forests and parks they oversee belong to us (the people of the U.S. and the world), seem to be taking another in a lengthy series of steps to restrict "our" use of "their" resources.  In this case, the USFS is proposing a new permanent rule to require media to get a permit to film and shoot photographs in national parks and forests.  The problem is that the USFS wants to make two significant changes to the existing rules.  First, to remove the exemption for "breaking news situations."  Second, to expand the USFS's authority to deny permits based on the nature and purpose of the project.  A spokesman for the National Press Photographers Association framed the issue succinctly: "What if they deny you a permit because they don't like the story you're working on?"  Steve Bass, head of Oregon Public Broadcasting, has a history of working with USFS on permits.  He understands that officials want to limit the impact large commercial shoots can have on the land, but cautions:

"Does the government get to decide what's newsworthy and what's not newsworthy? It's my understanding of the First Amendment that they don't get to decide that."

And that's the problem with all of these. Government and politicians have always sought to control news coverage.  Historically, the press pushes back, under the protection of the First Amendment.  Will they do so against politicians and agencies they favor as strongly as they do against politicians and agencies they don't like?

Sources - The Clinton team is following reporters to the bathroom.  Here's why that matters, Washington Post
Reporters say White House sometimes demands changes to press-pool reports, Washington Post
Forest Service wants media to obtain permits; move alarms First Amendment advocates, Montana Standard

Droning On, or Not

So we got our first drone/videocamera system a while back (at UTK's School of Journalism & Electronic Media), just before the FAA came out with its restrictions on drone use.  And checking with the University's legal office, they initially said we should limit use to over University property; then said better not use it until FAA figures out rules.  And so it's been on a shelf in our equipment room for the last year.

It's not that we, and other journalism programs, don't see the potential of drones to gather information and images.  One early application of drone journalism was its use to cover the aftermath of Alabama tornadoes in 2011. [The FAA started an investigation of that "unauthorized" drone usage, arguing that it violated its regulations (as yet, no public announcement of actions)].

On the international front, the Bangkok Post used drones to cover the political protests last year, Meanwhile, drones are finding widespread applications in filmmaking - especially documentaries (where drones offer significant cost savings over renting helicopters) - and other uses related to imaging (real estate) and monitoring (disaster relief, agriculture, etc.).   Drones are proving to be potentially very useful tools, albeit with real concerns about potential loss of privacy, or damages from drones hitting things (power lines, other aerial vehicles, even people). There's certainly enough to keep a few academic drone journalism centers occupied.

In the meantime, the FAA has banned most commercial drone use, while it works out its concerns and develops drone-specific rules.
In the meantime, this summer's seen an emergence of interest in drone journalism - based on some really good examples internationally, and a spate of horrified reactions when a (thankfully false) report surfaced that celebrity-news outfit TMZ had applied for a license to operate drones (to peek into celebrity homes and back yards).  The report was false, but the renewed interest in the ability to use drones in news gathering isn't.
 A number of "drone journalism" programs and centers have developed at University journalism programs. The initial problem they all face is getting permission to actually use drones for news gathering and news reporting.  Initially, many thought they could get waivers in the form of FAA "Certificate of Authorization" (COA) program designed for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).  That program allowed UAS use for research purposes, by "public operators (i.e. government agencies) of a specific drone within a specified geographic location for a limited period of time."  Even if the program was appropriate, the regulations require advance notice and approvals for each use, and severely limits the area and times of use - conditions that curtail the utility of drones for spot or breaking news coverage.
We profs would probably try sneaking drones into our journalism curriculum anyway, as we could identify specific times and places for class demonstrations.  However, the FAA indicated quite early on that "drones" were not the kind of "unmanned aircraft system" their current regulations covered, and until they could come up with new rules specifically for drones, most commercial drone usage (including for news coverage) was banned. So for now, the ability of most programs to use drones in journalism coverage and education is effectively curtailed.
That hasn't stopped some "drone journalism" centers and programs from partnering with news organizations to "research" drone journalism.  One, a joint project by Georgia Tech and CNN, to “investigate technologies, operating procedures, and crew skill requirements that will enable the safe and effective use of UASs for news coverage”, seems willing to continue despite FAA limits (part of that project is looking at aeronautical control systems, which the FAA considers UAS research).  Many others (Nebraska, Missouri, South Florida) have tried applying for COAs, despite the limitations.  But those approvals have not been coming.
Just as the FAA quickly decided that drones weren't UAS and thus able to operate within those guidelines, the FAA seem to have decided that drone journalism and other drone applications aren't what they meant by UAS research and were unlikely to get COAs.  Last month, the FAA said so explicitly, releasing a Memorandum that indicated that the only allowed use covered by a COA was for aeronautical research, which was restricted to research on airplane and aeronautical control systems.  The memorandum also indicated that the use of off-the-shelf drones for other research purposes (including journalism) would not be eligible for COAs.  The FAA suggested that public universities looking at drone applications wouldn't qualify as "public operators," either.

“The public aircraft statute exists to free governments from regulation, not to confer a benefit on government entities that is unavailable to civil operators. ... The public aircraft statute and UAS COAs do not exist to create a loophole of exclusive operation, or to allow state universities to become exclusive providers of certain aircraft operations by any entity willing to fund them as ‘research.’ ”

This certainly has slowed development of drone journalism here in the US; at least until 2015, when the FAA hopes to have new rules in place for drone operation.  Still, that delay hasn't slowed discussion of potential ethical issues, and consideration of whether the news industry should develop  normative guidelines for the use of drones in news reporting. Among the top ethical issues is the question of privacy (the TMZ/paparazzi issue), public concern that news organizations could be contributing to the growth of surveillance in public life, and the likelihood that drone coverage of criminal activities is likely to be subpoenaed by police (conflicts of interest).  Then there's the strong possibility of unanticipated effects, like drones hitting people or remote operators losing control. 

It's going to be an interesting new world with drone journalism, if and when the FAA allows it.

Sources: The Debate on Drones: Navigation for Journalists, PBS Mediashift, EducationShift
Ethics Aloft: The Pros and Cons of Journalists Using Drones,  PBS Mediashift, EducationShift.
University Hopes To Lend Drones To Students, May Face FAA Challenge, Forbes.com
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Alert: FAA memorandum may jeopardize certain state university research projects involving unmanned aircraft, Legal Alert from Kramer Leving Naftalis & Frankel laaw firm.

Pew: The State of Statehouse Reporting

Just out is a new research report from Pew Research Center that looks into local state legislative reporting and staffing.  It follows the general trend of newsroom staffing, with large declines in full-time newspaper newsroom staffing.  Major findings include:

• Most news organizations don't have anyone assigned to the statehouse beat. Only 30% of daily papers and 14% of local TV news have anyone regularly covering the statehouse (either full- or part-time)
• 16% of reporters covering the statehouse work for nonprofits or digital-only sites. Interestingly, that's about the same percentage for full-time reporters, suggesting that nontraditional outlets are just as likely as traditional news outlets to assign the statehouse as a full-time beat
• Some 14% of statehouse reporters are actually students.  (While not specifically addressed, it's likely that most of these are interns).

Some bemoan the shift in focus from local and state coverage to an increasing emphasis on national (and non-news) coverage.

“I do think there’s been a loss in general across the country, and that’s very concerning to me,” said Patrick Marley, who covers the Wisconsin statehouse for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “We have scads of reporters in Washington covering every bit of news that Congress makes. State legislators have more effect on people’s daily lives. We need to have eyes on them, lots of eyes.”

Another concern is that many news organization are combining statehouse staffing and coordinating their coverage, which shrinks (if not eliminates) diversity and investigative reporting.  The study also notes that most states are producing their own news feeds of statehouse activities, providing a cheap source for raw coverage and the potential for state actors to frame coverage to their advantage.

Sources:  America's Shifting Statehouse Press: Can New Players Compensate for Lost Legacy Reporters, Pew Research Center
Full Research  Report, Pew Research Center
Legislative Broadcasts and Webcasts, National Conference of State Legislatures