A gag order sometimes produces a gag reflex
I can understand why some government agencies feel they need to centralize control of “messaging” - particularly if the agency is responsible for wide-ranging issues or fundamental policies, like economic development, unemployment insurance, or fiscal policy.
But a policy of centralization tends to backfire when applied to an organization made up of scientists and researchers. Any attempt to truly restrict communication, whether by limiting the number of spokespeople on truly technical matters or by boiling messaging down until only a wisp of information remains, will inevitably result in dis-satisfaction among the technical corps.
It’s also reflective of a poor understanding of the way scientists and researchers work. They may spend a lot of time in the lab or at a research station, but they also depend upon a web of publications, seminars, academic conferences and professional consultation to further their work and their careers. Increasingly, universities, businesses and governments are funding multi-disciplinary research projects. By their very nature, these projects encourage cooperation and information sharing.
Communicators earn their bread and butter by working with technically-minded folk to identify the innovative or ground-breaking nature of their work, then develop a theme or storyline appealing to the public and the media. Often, the scientists and researchers have done most of this work.
Which makes the centralization effort by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration unusual. Apparently, the NHTSA Administrator is the principal spokesperson for the agency.
“…I found this out recently when I asked to talk to an N.H.T.S.A. researcher about some technical safety issues in which he had a great deal of expertise. Agency officials told me I could talk to the expert on a background basis, but if I wanted to use any information or quotes from him, that would have to be worked out later with a N.H.T.S.A. official.”
“…Ms. Nason [the Administrator] felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a “central spokesperson” and “we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record,” David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me. He also insisted, after our telephone conversation, that he did not want to be quoted and had intended to speak only on background. (My notes show no such request.)” (NYTimes Wheels blog)
This sort of policy doesn’t encourage fealty and silence. Just the opposite: scientists and researchers still have to do their work. They just stop telling communications staff and headquarters officials what they’re doing. Want evidence? Try this comment posted in response to the blog post cited above:
“… I’m a mid-level (non-management) lifer at a government agency that sometimes makes the news. I have talked to reporters before and will continue to do so. When I do so I inform my boss and the public affairs people after the fact. (They’re friends, and they deserve not to be blindsided.) I get a good paycheck and in return surrender 40+ hours of my time each week, but they can’t buy my silence … — Posted by Bureaucrat”
