Aggregator
Spectrum Down
Homeless woman found dead in downtown St. Louis amid dangerous cold
Dildo from st.Charles uses a dead homeless woman to score political points
Clayton law firm renews lease, will renovate offices
St. Louis County man accused of child sex trafficking
Trump hides migrant detention away at Gitmo
Thanks to dogged reporting and unnamed sources, we know that as of last week, the Trump administration has sent nearly 100 migrants to the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where at least some are being held in the same military detention facility as terrorism suspects.
Yet much remains unknown by the press and the public about the migrant operation at Gitmo. As Freedom of the Press Foundation Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote in The Daily Beast, the government’s detentions at Gitmo are happening largely out of sight of the American people — seemingly by design.
Vogus wrote:
“We shouldn’t have to rely on reporters’ tenacity and commitment to the fourth estate to gain basic information about what the government is up to. Sending deportees to Gitmo doesn’t just signal that the Trump administration is cracking down on immigration—it’s cracking down on the public’s right to know, too.”
Walgreens to shutter north St. Louis store
Snowstorm passes overnight; flurries possible Wednesday
Incredible St. Louis Music Event coming up. Highly recommend going to any of the 3 nights
Jefferson County braces for second round of snow
OSHA Purges DEIA From Some Regs
Despite problems of frigid temperatures, plows busy in St. Charles County
Journalists: Post public records without paywalls
We’ve all probably had this experience at some point: a news story discusses a government document the reporter has managed to obtain and that we’d like to read as well. But, after scouring the article for a link to said document, it becomes clear that it’s not there.
This used to be a minor annoyance. Why not let people see public source material for themselves? No matter how thorough journalists may be, they often don’t have room to tell us all the document might. Plus, as law professor Sarah Fackrell noted, reporters might miss something about a court filing a lawyer would pick up on, something about a public health document a doctor might catch, and so on.
But the stakes are higher now, as government websites and records disappear, agencies are haphazardly folded, lawless oligarchs shield their shady quasi-governmental operations from view, and the future of the National Archives is uncertain.
It’s on all of us to preserve the public domain. Everyone should be getting into the habit of archiving any government record they access online so it’s not lost. But the press should help lead the charge. Or, at the very least, when they obtain government documents, they should let news readers share the wealth.
That means news stories should include links to public documents (hosted somewhere other than government sites from which they might disappear). It also means not paywalling them.
Ideally, we’d like to see news outlets not paywall any government records-based reporting (if a small independent outlet like 404 Media can do it, others can too). It’s a problem that misinformation is free and real news isn’t. But if that’s not economically feasible, at least let people access the records themselves for free. They’re public records, after all.
News isn’t just any business, it’s a constitutionally protected public service. And the moment calls for the Fourth Estate to do whatever it can to preserve transparency.
News outlets could even take it a step further: proactively post all newsworthy public records they find during their reporting, whether online, through the Freedom of Information Act, or otherwise. We’re not asking them to forfeit scoops: They can wait till they’ve either reported on the records or decided they’re not going to anytime soon.
We get it: News outlets expend significant resources in pursuit of government records, sometimes litigating FOIA cases for years before finally getting what they’re after. Why should people get to piggyback off those efforts for free?
Well, because news isn’t just any business, it’s a constitutionally protected public service. And the moment calls for the Fourth Estate to do whatever it can to preserve transparency.
But beyond that, what’s to say that sharing public records is bad for business? What’s more likely to entice someone to subscribe: brief previews of articles that offer no assurance that the rest is worth reading, let alone paying for? Or the clearly newsworthy — but often dense — records the articles explain?
Most people don’t want to read, synthesize, and contextualize public records themselves — they rely on journalists for that. If journalists show them what records they’re digging up, they might gain respect for the work reporters do and want to know what they have to say about them.
Over the next few years, a lot of people and industries will have to put aside assumptions and norms from a bygone era and do what’s needed to preserve American democracy (or at least a record of what once was). Sharing public records with the public is one low-cost, low-risk strategy for journalists to do their part. Who knows, it might even be profitable.
stLouIST