Events
Unlocking Government Information
By James McGrath Morris, WIW Board Member
More than two dozen writers and researchers gained a fast-paced education in how to obtain information from government sources at the WIW Freedom to Write Fund’s (WIW-FWF) February 8 “Unlocking Government Information” Workshop. The two-and-half-hour long presentation covered the strategies, techniques and means of ferreting hard-to-obtain information from government bureaucracies.
Three experts with vast experience in investigative journalism, book writing and national security presented a wide array of tips as well as entertaining war stories from their battles with reluctant government agencies or, in one case, members of organized crime.
Dan Moldea, a past president of WIW and an independent crime reporter with eight books under his belt, regaled the audience with tales of interviewing known contract killers, and offered an overall plan for any kind of investigation. In his experience, there are five levels to an investigation. First: Go through all available public records. Second: Interview friendly sources. Third: Interview neutral sources; fourth, interview dangerous sources (meaning those who will mislead or lie); and, fifth, interview the target of your investigation. Moldea maintains a remarkable Web site filled with useful links for anyone considering investigative research: (www.moldea.com)
Meredith Fuchs, the general counsel of the National Security Archive (also listed an approach for writers seeking documents from the Federal Government under the procedures of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). First: Fuchs said one should approach these requests by completing research that permits a reasonable description of the records being sought. Second: The person should maintain a careful paper record of all correspondence related to the request. Third: Follow up and nudge the government official with whom the request was placed. An acknowledgement of the FOIA request should be issued within two weeks and the material should be forthcoming within several months, though it may take years. Nudging, particular of the friendly variety, is often necessary. But, and this was her fourth point, one should also present a credible threat of negative publicity or litigation when the request seems to be ignored. Fuchs also instructed the participants that if one’s work is of public interest, or if one can prove an affiliation with the media or an educational institution, the fees for the request may be waived: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/.
Scott Armstrong, the former Washington Post reporter who founded the National Security Archive, was the evening’s third panelist. He concurred with the strategies and suggestions made by Moldea and Fuchs. Successful enterprise or investigative reporting requires enormous research, intensive interviewing, and an ability to put together the larger picture, he said. Audience members, as well as panel members, were visibly impressed by his tales of interviewing sources at Little League baseball games for the sources’ children. After pleas from fellow panelists and the audience, Armstrong consented to tell the riveting tale of his service on the Senate Watergate Committee and how his work helped uncover the existence of a secret taping system in the White House. The ensuing fight over the tapes was instrumental in bringing an end to the Nixon presidency.
The evening was moderated by Mark Stricherz, a former San Francisco Bay area reporter who is at work on a book titled Why the Democrats are Blue. The panel session was held in a conference room kindly provided by WIW-FWF Board member John Lowe of the law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in support of the WIW Freedom to Write Fund.
Here are some useful web links for people considering conducting FOIA requests:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html
http://www.ire.org/
http://web.missouri.edu/~foiwww/
http://www.nfoic.org/
"Whose Work Is It, Anyway? The Google Print Project and the Future of the Written Word"
Written by Michael Causey, WIW President |
|
A panel that was both knowledgeable and passionate dissected a critical topic at the October 25 WIW/FWF seminar that pointedly asked, “Whose Work Is It, Anyway?” The program was also sponsored by the National Press Club’s Public Affairs Committee and was held at the Press Club’s downtown ballroom. The event was covered by leading media organizations such as C-SPAN’s Book TV and the National Journal. At issue was Google’s ambitious project to digitize whole books and post parts of them (the exact size of the excerpts remains one of many bones of contention) on the Internet, while making no payment to the authors. Moderator Marvin Kalb summed it up when he asked at the outset, “Is this an audacious program of corporate theft? A laudable act of cultural preservation? An unrivalled marketing opportunity for writers and publishers?” As with almost everything else in Washington, D.C., the answers depended on who was talking. To panelist Sidney Verba, a Harvard University Professor working with Google to digitize that University’s massive collection, the benefits of the program are so great as to be almost incalculable for the public good. For starters, he said, Google’s effort would level one of society’s great inequalities: access to information and education. But David Robbins, best-selling author of War of the Rats and the new The Assassins Gallery, likened Google to Dracula. Under the guise of public good, he said, Google is trying to get authors and publishers to “invite it in” so it can ultimately control a proprietary database of authors’ works. Robbins stressed he backs the goal of preserving and disseminating written works, but believes it should be run by a public entity such as the Library of Congress and not a private enterprise like Google that may have other motivations than the public good. “I just don’t trust a private entity to do a public chore,” he said. A panelist who said he had “no ax to grind” in this battle was Andrew Glass, senior editor of The Capital Leader. He urged both sides to take a “real world” view of the issue. For example, though he seemed to agree that a public entity should handle this effort, he cautioned that Google is the only entity stepping forward to do the job. He predicted Google would show more sensitivity to authors’ concerns and also warned against taking an “apocalyptic” view of Google’s intentions and involvement. Attorneys representing authors and publishers touched on what they believe is at least a big chunk of Google’s motivation: selling more advertising on its Web portal. “We can offer rationalizations” about Google’s alleged altruism here, but “it is theft pure and simple,” said Allan Adler, vice president for legal and government affairs at the Association of American Publishers. Google’s main motive in this endeavor, Adler charged, is to “serve their own purpose of selling ads” and delivering “eyeballs” to go to its Web site. Adler and Authors Guild Executive Director Paul Aiken agreed that they have no quarrel with other search engines that are using small portions of a book on their Web sites, under licensing agreements with authors and publishers. “We favor it, but it must be licensed and not appropriated” as Google is trying to do, Aiken said. But attorney Jonathan Band, who represents a coalition of search engines including Google, said that an author can opt-out of the Google program if he or she wants to. He also noted that Google would allow searchers to access only about ten sentences of each book, and fewer if it was a reference book like a dictionary or a book of poems or haiku. Google opponents countered that authors and publishers should not have the onus of opting out placed on them, while Google supporters urged that the project would be too expensive and even unmanageable if Google had to chase down each author for formal permission. Were minds changed by the event? Hard to say, and ultimately the real battle is going to be in the courts or Congress. But events like the FWF/WIW “Whose Work Is It, Anyway?” seminar are helping air the issues out and informing the decision-making process for us all. “Programs like this, and our ongoing public advocacy in support of writers, are not possible without the generous support of our members and sponsors,” said David O. Stewart, FWF president and WIW board member. To find out more about supporting FWF, e-mail freedom@washwriter.org. Among the other guests at the event were WIW President Michael Causey, Past WIW President and FWF Vice President Joe Barbato, WIW Secretary and FWF Secretary/Treasurer Ken Ackerman, WIW Treasurer Al Portner, FWF Board Member John Lowe, FWF Advisory Board Member Beryl Lieff Benderly, WIW Board Members Gene Meyer, Rob Udowitz and Phil Piemonte, and past WIW Board Members Beth Duris and Adam Meyer. |
PAST ACTIVITIES
(as the WIW Legal and Education Fund, 1980-2005)
Legal Support—Censorship
Debbie Davis vs. Her publisher
In this case of complete censorship and suppression, LEF provided support for Debbie Davis. She wrote an unauthorized biography of the Washington Post’s Katherine Graham, Graham, disagreeing with the viewpoints of the book, used her influence to have it removed from stores and pulped. Davis was successful in her counteraction to have the book redistributed.
Opposing censorship of students
A high school student in Virginia whose story was barred from the school magazine because he used the word “virgin” was supported by LEF with legal services and the weight if the writing community. The story ran uncensored.
The reinstatement of the editor of Howard University’s student paper was successfully supported by LEF increasing the visibility of the situation. The student editor had been expelled for continuing coverage of a sex discrimination case against the school
Legal Support—Prior restraint
Kitty Kelley vs. Frank Sinatra
Kitty Kelley was sued by Frank Sinatra to prevent her from writing an unauthorized biography and LEF provided financial and public support. One event was attended by more than 100 people and raised significant funds. Kelley shared a portion of the proceeds with WIW-member Jim Srodes (see below).
Legal Support—Confidentiality of sources
Srodes vs. DeLorean
Jim Srodes, author and former president of WIW, was subpoenaed to testify in California about government sources he used in writing a book about John DeLorean. Support for Srodes position that this was privileged information came from LEF, providing funds for legal counsel resulting in the overturn of the subpoena.
U.S. vs. Vanessa Leggett
Vanessa Leggett, a teacher and author in Texas, was arrested and imprisoned for refusing to surrender her investigative materials for a book on a criminal case. An amicus brief filed by LEF supported her position that she should be able to keep copies of her work.
Legal Support—Fair compensation
Gigi Pickford vs. The Washingtonian
This case provided the impetus for the formation of the WIW Freedom to Write Fund. It involved a story first published in The Washingtonian, then reprinted by the Baltimore Washingtonian without additional compensation to its author, Gigi Pickford.
Treasury Department Writers
LEF supported the U.S. Treasury Department Union in a successful law suit enabling union members to be paid for freelance work.
Educational Issues and the Law
Survey of regional ordnances
A survey of all regional ordinances that affect writers who work at home was implemented by LEF. This clarified the legal restrictions on independent writers and uncovered some protection for writers in certain jurisdictions.