It’s the first week into a new administration, and while the news has been filled with images of protestors marching in the streets, the urges of others to keep an open mind and give the new president a chance have also been notable.
Part of keeping an open mind is making a point of considering the information from both sides of an issue. The Trump administration made that more difficult this week. While there are no official reports from the administration itself, people inside federal agencies are getting word to the media via The Hill, a Washington D.C. based organization reporting on policy and politics, that the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture have been ordered to freeze grants and communication to the public is being limited. Reports say that grants have been halted and data from scientific research is being restricted.
In an era where fake news is presented to look just as legitimate as news gathered by professionals with journalistic principles, it can be hard to discern what’s real and what’s not. The best way is to first find out if a wide base of reputable sources are reporting along the same lines.
We went looking, and in addition to several other media outlets, the magazine Popular Science weighed in with an informative article, “What we actually lose when the USDA and EPA can’t talk to the public.”
The final step in determining if the news should be trusted was to go to the source. We contacted the EPA Region 7 (Midwest) office, identifying our newspaper and asked to speak with a public information officer to inquire if the reports were true.
The receptionist put us on hold while she searched for the right person to answer our question. When she returned about five minutes later, we were told, “We are referring media calls concerning this to our headquarters,” and she provided a Washington D.C. phone number and and an email address. “They can be of assistance to you.”
Calling that number, we were sent directly to a recorded message from EPA media relations, requesting if we are on deadline that we leave a detailed message, or email our question, or visit epa.gov/newsroom for a list of press contacts. We did.
We left a message and emailed Region 7 Press Contact Angela Brees, first. Then, we attempted to contact Enesta Jones, whom we found on the EPA.gov website as designated press contact concerning climate change. Moments later, we received a blank email with the subject line to “please email press@epa.gov” and that was followed a few hours later by an email from Carey Curtis, Ph.D., Public Affairs Director at the EPA, with the following statement: “Yes, the EPA fully intends to continue to provide information to the public. A fresh look at public affairs and communications processes is common practice for any new Administration, and a short pause in activities allows for this assessment.”
This prepared statement was echoed in a report yesterday afternoon by the Rural Radio Network, “USDA faces media firestorm over information ban.” That report noted that a similar, though less inflammatory, mandate was issued when Barack Obama took office in 2009 and his administration was in transition.
So, readers, it’s your call. Hopefully, these efforts as reported will help you to feel confident in whatever decisions you may make about the current administration.