Mária Žuffová discusses the role of Freedom of Information (FOI) laws in journalism. By polling journalists, interviewing activists and government officials, and submitting freedom of information requests to government departments, she identifies a number of problems with the process. Journalists reported that their requests were often denied for questionable reasons, delayed or with no response at all. One of the consequences of this is that journalists can choose to use loopholes in the law in order to be able to publish articles that are in the public interest.

Defenders of freedom of information laws have long argued that legislating on the right of access to information improves government responsiveness and accountability, including by enabling journalists to better fulfill their oversight role. By providing information of public interest generated by independent bureaucratic processes, it is argued, states allow the press to sound the alarm when public funds are mismanaged, public services are poorly delivered, or rights citizens are raped. While the two available research and examples of investigative journalism provided proof in this sense, we know little about how journalists use freedom of information laws to get information and how they find the process.

In my latest research, focusing on the UK’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), I interviewed 164 journalists, interviewed seven activists and officials and submitted requests to 21 government departments to assess how the process worked in practice . The results are mixed as FOIA is an effective instrument of government control.

Journalists see FOIA as an essential tool for their work. However, over 70% of the journalists surveyed submit less than 50 requests per year (Figure 1), or less than one request per week. Half of them submit less than ten requests per year. These results contrast with some deputies and authorities’ says journalists abuse FOIA and create an unreasonable administrative burden for authorities.

Additionally, while the journalists I interviewed perceived FOIA as offering many benefits to journalism – namely reliability, accuracy and exclusivity – they often described the experience as problematic. Four issues stood out: long delays, administrative silence, wide application of the exemption for cost reasons and differential treatment.

Journalists argued that the time needed to comply with requests was too long to keep up with the fast pace of editorial work. My own experience with submitting ATI requests to government departments has been that obtaining the requested information often takes much longer than the legally prescribed 20 working days. Almost half of the services responded on the very last day of the legal deadline; others asked for clarification, which reset the clock and added additional days to the initial wait. Additionally, if access to information requests are denied, it may take up to eight months for the original decision to be returned through the appeal process, as reported in a recent openDemocracy report. In order for FOIA to become more useful to journalists, the timelines may therefore be shorter.

From a time perspective, not responding to a request was another concern, as the person making the request is left in legal limbo. In contrast, in many other jurisdictions, failure to respond is considered a denial and allows the applicant to go through the standard appeal process. Introduce a similar rule on administrative silence in the UK, as recommended by both openDemocracy and my society, would be another step forward towards improving the practice of freedom of information.

A high refusal rate also frustrated journalists, especially the fee exemption, which they said was most often used to justify withholding requested information. While governments have several legitimate reasons for refusing requests, statistics on government FOI performance indicate a tendency towards opacity, with the rate of refusal having almost doubled over the past 15 years. The problem with refusals on the grounds of costs is that they create an information asymmetry in favor of public authorities, as applicants cannot verify whether the justification provided is genuine. Increasing the cost limits stipulated in the FOIA and the ability for applicants to pay excess costs in order to have their requests answered, as is common in other jurisdictions, will go some way to address this. problem.

Finally, research participants argued that their requests “are treated differently from those of any ordinary member of the public.” One of the interviewees, representing civil society, argued that “sensitive requests” reach senior officials in the departmental hierarchy who tend to “see the threats and not the benefits of disclosure”. For these reasons, some journalists are turning to publicly available data instead of filing an access to information request like ‘[data] allows you to explore an idea of ​​history without having to alert the authorities to what is being watched ”. These findings are consistent with research available in other jurisdictions, which has already documented the issue of differential treatment of access to information requests by journalists. Brazil, Canada and United States. In addition, in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Information Commissioner also highlighted the issue of sending some journalists’ requests to a high-level decision-making process, which has the effect of further delaying access. He concluded that this practice is erroneous and runs counter to the general FOIA principle of blind practice by the claimant. An OpenDemocracy 2020 report also suggested that this practice is common at the central government level, where the clearinghouse has been set up to detect and hide claims that could pose a risk to reputation.

Perhaps even more disturbing, Time data reporter George greenwood recently Free proof that journalists’ requests are treated differently. In response to his request for subject access to the Cabinet Office, he learned that the FOI and Clearing House teams had information about him. References to him as “always active” and his requests “as sensitive” suggest that journalists are being targeted and their requests handled differently. This can be mitigated by anonymizing all requests immediately after they are received and before the first point of contact redistributes them further within the authority.

If we agree that the public needs accurate information to make the best possible decisions, and that one of the most important goals of journalism is to provide that information to the public, then the government should make it accessible to the public. information for journalists as efficient as possible.

___________________

Note: The above is based on the author’s research published in the International press / political review, and which was funded by a University of Strathclyde GPP / IPPI doctoral scholarship.

About the Author

Mária Žuffová is a postdoctoral researcher at the European University Institute.

photo by Phrom Bank at Unsplash.