ShareThis Page
Editorials

Trib Sunshine Week 2018 editorial: Rising censorship sheds less light on Washington

| Thursday, March 15, 2018, 9:36 a.m.
Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association

Records on Freedom of Information Act requests for fiscal year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, were released shortly before Sunshine Week 2018, which celebrates the media's watchdog role, the people's right to know and public-access laws such as FOIA. Unfortunately, an Associated Press analysis of those records shows that the federal government increasingly doesn't provide what FOIA requesters are seeking.

Only about one in five got everything they sought. Requesters “received censored files or nothing in 78 percent of 823,222 requests, a record over the past decade.” In a little more than half of cases where the government provided nothing, it claimed it could find no related information — and such cases were up 18 percent over the previous year.

Cases where the government withheld requested information, claiming its release would be illegal — FOIA exceptions include national-security, personal-privacy and business-secret concerns — nearly doubled. In almost two-thirds of cases where requesters received something, the government censored documents. And when requesters challenged denials, the government reversed itself more than a third of the time — while spending $40.6 million on legal fees.

What the AP analyzed includes records from eight months of the Trump administration. Hopefully, what the AP found isn't indicative of an anti-transparency trend under this president — which would only make holding Washington accountable harder for the American people.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me