Solidarity with David Schultz
My friend David Schultz is a reporter. On Tuesday, he was covering a public meeting at the Veterans Affairs hospital here in Washington, D.C. Routine, right? But when he started interviewing a veteran who had complaints about the care he was receiving at the hospital, Gloria Hairston, a communications specialist at the VA, demanded that Dave stop the interview and turn over his recorder. When he said he wouldn't, she called on the security guards at the event to intimidate him, demanded the memory card to his recorder, and threatened him when a vet tried to give Dave his phone number so they could talk later. WTOP has a fuller account of the sequence of the events here, but we shouldn't need to hear more to get outraged.
Dave was doing his job, doing it in an open, public forum, and as a result, he got harassed, threatened, and ultimately had his property stolen by a federal employee just because he was reporting news she didn't like.
I know that sounds harsh. And I know that some of you aren't too fond of the press. I've taught seminars to federal employees on how to deal with the media, and I know that often, you feel the press portrays agencies and feds unfairly. But I also know that, as reporters, we work very hard to get good, accurate information, and to tell your stories, when we can, and when you're allowed to talk to us. What happened to Dave didn't just happen to him. Gloria Hairston denied veterans their right to speak about the quality of services they received, and denied everyone who cares about VA a chance to learn about how well--or how poorly--the agency does its job.
Policies and individual actions that make it extremely difficult for reporters to speak to rank-and-file employees or to get quick responses to questions do damage to the quality of the news we can give our readers, and discourage dissent and debate within agencies themselves. Federal employees, much less the people who receive federal services, should not be afraid to speak to the press. And federal agencies shouldn't be afraid to let them.
I understand the desire to discipline the message, to make sure information flows through controllable channels. But there's a huge difference between making sure that people don't blab national security secrets to anyone who will listen, and controlling information flow so tightly that the relationship between agencies and the press becomes like a dangerously clogged artery. It's a lot worse to have information continue to flow and to participate in the conversation than to have it blow up in your face all at once. Organizations always, ALWAYS come across looking better when they explain what they're doing and why than when they clam up and don't talk. A good example of that in my own work came when I was covering a hoax the Justice Department designed to test its' employees awareness of internet-based phishing schemes. The Department looked bad, but after I talked to the Justice Chief Information Officer, the test came across as more reasonable, even if their approach to it didn't. Did they love talking to me about it? I'm sure they didn't. But it was the right thing to do to explain their decision, and I give the Justice Department's communications office for choosing openness rather than defensiveness.
But if agencies, or individual press people don't want to talk to the media, it's their right not to. It's profoundly not their right to prevent people from asking questions, and it's dangerous when they use the threat of arrest and prosecution to try to get someone like Dave to stop. There is a strong public interest in access to the truth. We all have a stake in whether the VA is getting good treatment to veterans. We all have a stake in knowing if government is spending our tax dollars wisely. We all have a stake in knowing if government is keeping us safe. And as reporters, we need you, as federal employees, and as readers, to stand up for our rights so we can protect yours.
Dave is being characteristically modest about this. He emailed me this morning to say:
"This story is not about me. This story is about the VA going to extraordinary lengths to prevent veterans from speaking to the media. Instead of talking to me, journalists should be going to the VA hospital to hear the vets' truly horrendous stories. Trust me, they want to talk."
And trust me, we want to listen.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
You have not drawn a sharp enough line between employees and the public. Veterans do not work for the VA, they are the customers of that agency. Employers have the right to tell employees to refer the press to the press office, but they have no right to tell their customers who they can or cannot speak to. Veterans especially have an honored place in society. They fought, many of them, for the right to free speech. It is unconscionable that an official with the agency created to serve veterans would try to muzzle them.
Ted Bean Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 4:48 PMI agree that Ms Hairston's conduct was completely out of line, especially the theft of Mr Schultz's property. As for her threat to "get ugly", she was already ugly - very, very ugly. If the VA could only invest half the effort into fixing their problems that they do in trying to cover them up.
M. Stowe Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 5:49 PMI totally agree with Ted Bean. Ms. Hairston is denying a veteran the right to voice his opinion. I also wonder if she is might imply that the "offending" veteran's benefits might suffer if he didn't do as she demanded. I fully understand the annoyance of reporters digging for dirt at what was basically her party, but her actions toward both the reporter and the veteran are absolutely inexcusable. She should, at the very least, be reprimanded.
S. O'Hara Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 6:36 PMJust listened to the president talk about the ongoing effort to build a "new VA" that takes much better care of veterans. I served with the US Rangers and Special Forces in Vietnam (68-69) and like all veterans of all wars that are still living__"we've heard it all before". Look, I like Obama and I do believe he's sincere in his thoughts, but though I don't live in Missouri my first response is "show me!"
My story is not special but here's some of the highlights of my VA care over the past 10 years___
*waited 9 months to get an appt. with a foot specialist to have an ingrown toenail taken care of
* last year while talking to my primary care doc about my effort to always trying to get multiple appts. on the same day because I live 21/2 hrs. drive (one way) the first response was __"well, maybe you should think about moving closer to Portland or Seattle".
*not only do I have to drive 21/2 hrs. to an appt. I have never been able to "get an appt. to get an appt." with my primary care doc quicker than one month out. So for any immediate attention to immediate issues I have to drive to the emergency rm. So if it falls short of "life threatening" I go back to the "one month" waiting list to get an appt. with the right Doc.
*waited 3 months to get an derm. appt. to check out a growth that I was concerned might be cancer__ I had, two months earlier, a cancerous growth removed so I had a history. "Sorry, you'll just have to wait, or go to the emergency rm." ___ the most frequent VA response to any medical condition.
*2yrs. ago I drove (the old 21/2 hr. drive__one way) to a primary care appt. and some where along the line I lost 20 minutes. I showed up at the desk, was told I was checked off a few minutes ago as a "no-show", and I'd need to make another appt. (one month out).
*the shrink I had been seeing on a regular basis for 5-6 yrs. quit the VA a few yrs. ago. Main reason, as he put it, the admin. guys wanted him to do less "talk time " and just concentrate on getting his guys the right "meds". This doc was 20 or so yrs. with the VA and well known for his work with PTSD conditions.
Look, you know this list goes on and on. Basically the VA care is poor, mainly on the admin end, not the care givers themselves, but it is true that you are going to be seen by residents and PA's far more than by regular MD's.
In closing I must say that I'm behind the effort of univ. health care, but God forbid, the gov. is actually involved in running this system. That would be a formula for disaster.
Thanks for listening,
Rick Carr
rick carr Posted Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:57 AMThis is one of the reasons I resolved to NEVER use VA medical facilities after I left active duty in 1977.
Carl M. McDaniels Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 8:53 AMThe following five terms as defined by "The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition," 1980, came to mind when reading your article:
(1) Censorship- 1. act of censoring.
(2) Censor- 1. an official who examines books, plays, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
(3) Intimidate- 3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear.
(4) Extortion- 2. Law. the wrongful taking of a person’s money or property with his consent but by use of threat or violence or under color of office.
(5) False imprisonment- Law. the unlawful imprisonment or detention of a person.
It’s a shame that the actions of a few (in this case mainly one) can tarnish the hard efforts of so many. The President, Congress, VA, and most American citizens want to do right by our veterans.
However, it would seem that Ms. Gloria Hairston doesn’t understand President Obama’s Transparency in Government intentions or how her very actions could intimidate those she is supposed to serve. Without honest feedback, how can we truly, better serve our veterans and the American taxpayer?
It does seem that the upper Management of the VA (or at least their legal consul) understands extortion and false imprisonment. No wonder they are not responding to your inquiries. They don’t want to admit any liability/guilt in case this goes to court.
To Mr. David Schultz: Hang in there. Unfortunately you didn’t have the experience at the time to know what Ms. Hairston was doing was inappropriate, if not unlawful, and “possibly” put her in her place; now you do. You did have the good sense to call you boss and follow his guidance. The Nation needs good reporters, and it would seem that you are on your way to becoming one. I look forward to seeing you on prime time in a few years.
To Mr. Jim Asendio: Please push this issue.
R. Brown- Disabled Vet Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 9:50 AMI hope that you are able to report later this week that Ms. Hairston was disciplined. The VA should be very ashamed of her actions and take steps to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.
From now on, the first thing each reporter should do is announce his/her phone number or better yet, pass out business cards!
Charlie Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 10:52 AMI have to say that my first reaction was that she must be a hold-over from the Bush administration, but a**h***s are everywhere in every administration. We can only hope that her career has been cut short by her actions in this incident.
Michelle Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 11:07 AMAs the president of the local VFW Auxiliary, I am shocked by the Hairston's behavior and she should not be disciplined, she should be fired, at the very least. To deny a veteran his legal right to free speech is inconceivable and to seize property is illegal. There are no excuses for this behavior, but it should be a signal that there should be a followup to what is going on in that hospital.
D Esselman Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 11:56 AMSounds like we need more than a new VA Hospital.. we need new employees to work in it. Those with a heart for people. Fire the ones there now and start over. There are plenty of people who need a job. America: Stop giving up your rights, especially the basic ones like freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc.
mkh-l Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:42 AM