An Open Letter from the NIOA President

Jun 3, 2019 | President's Point of View

How to deal with obstructive public information officers? Challenge Them.

That’s the headline of a May 20, 2019 article by Cinnamon Janzer in the Columbia Journalism Review. Janzer’s article begins with a complaint that when she tried to interview Minneapolis Police Chief Medaira Arradondo on April 18, the PIO responded that he was busy, but she could email a list of questions as an alternative.

The reporter declined to email any questions on the basis that email interviews “can provide cover for story subjects to craft protective messages with their public relations advisers.” The reporter attempted to bypass the PIO; however, she was repeatedly told that all communication had to go through the PIO. Following that policy directed answer, she went to the mayor’s office which provided her a two-sentence statement. Her story was then written without the “two major public officials at its center answering a single question.”

This mischaracterization misses the effort of the PIO to get her the information she sought. Rather, her issue was that it removed the “dynamic qualities” that an interview offers. Janzer does not take the opportunity to explain why she declined to wait for the opportunity to have that face-to-face interaction. Following the publication of her story, she wrote the subsequent article for the CJR to blast the process.

Based on her article, only Janzer’s side of the interaction with the PIO is known. As a result of her reporting, it is difficult to have an issue with how the PIO responded. Chiefs of Police will candidly admit that during a busy day they do not always have time to sit down with a reporter on deadline.  Here the function of the PIO is to work to get the reporter the information they need, even if it isn’t in a formal interview process. Without the PIO, the reporter would be left with no answer at all.

That is not a “refusal to answer,” as Carolyn Carlson, former president of the Society of Professional Journalists, alleged in the CJR article. That is a PIO saying, “I can’t get you the interview, but I can still get you the information.” In other words, this is a PIO trying to work collaboratively with the reporter to get them information for publication of a story.

Janzer’s word choice of “craft protective messages” is presented seemingly out of conjecture. PIOs define the facts and circumstance, not defend to protect image. PIO’s craft messages for agencies for the sole purpose of keeping communities informed, empowered and engaged. In an age where social media moves information, often wrong, at a rapid pace, this role is critical to public safety. Those efforts will not, nor should they be defended.

According to Janzer, “the Public Information Officer is a frequently obstructive mechanism thinly veiled by a helpful sounding title.  PIO-approved comments shape the narratives of their news coverage across the country on matters that range from the mundane to the extremely consequential.”

The National Information Officers Association (NIOA) begs to differ. For the 500-plus NIOA members across the country, the Public Information Officer is someone who works tirelessly to message on behalf of their agency in an effort to keep communities safe. The title PIO is helpful sounding because that’s exactly what PIO’s are, helpful. The work PIO’s do on a daily basis does shape narratives, which is critical for building trust and changing perceptions. Those narratives aren’t about image management. They are about informing the public of the real work that is being done every day by public safety professionals.

Some familiar names appear in Janzer’s article. Carolyn Carlson, the former SPJ president, who is also a retired journalist and professor, and Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida, both of whom have been extremely critical of public information officers.

LoMonte went so far as to say that the practice of a PIO being “deployed by both public and private entities to control journalists’ inquiries” is illegal… “as problematic as gag orders during highly publicized trials.” He said he is working to create a “roadmap” for news outlets to challenge “canned responses from communication teams.” He also suggests that journalists ask for an agency’s media policy to see whose signature is on it as “there’s a real legal question as to how enforceable a memo like that is.”

Carlson suggested that journalists write articles about “obstruction by PIOs directly.” Janzer’s CJR article is a clear reflection of that directive. NIOA members know that these views are in direct conflict with how PIO’s serve communities while working collaboratively with the media. PIO’s specifically train for this work at NIOA’s annual conference and throughout the year through classes provided by organizations like FBI-LEEDA, FEMA, IACP and others. PIO’s recognize the incredible responsibility to message on behalf of our agencies, and it’s a duty they don’t take lightly.

It is true that with all the training available, there are still PIO’s who have not had the same training, use best practices, or work for a police chief, fire chief, mayor or city manager that doesn’t grasp the critical nature of transparency and working with the media.

I am challenging all of us to reach out to a PIO in our area and share information about NIOA and the benefits of attending our annual conference. If we are going to change the media’s perception and definition of the PIO, it starts with us.

– Stephanie Slater, President
National Information Officers Association