Your Right to Hold Government Accountable is Under Attack in Arkansas

A special legislative session this week will attempt to gut the law that protects our right to know what our government is doing.

Arkansans don’t put up with secretive politicians. Our Natural State is skepticism (pun intended). It’s why we spent the past year filling purposefully small rooms for school board meetings and finding ways into unadvertised “town halls.” When public officials try to keep something in the dark, we show up with spotlights.

Our opposition to opaqueness is codified into state law. The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is described by the state attorney general’s office as “one of the most comprehensive and strongest open-records and open-meetings laws in the country.”

It was passed in 1967, a few months after the federal FOIA, and is widely regarded as a superior defense of the public’s right to know. The Arkansas law requires the government to answer citizens’ information requests faster with fewer exemptions, and builds in an appeals process that is punitive toward government agencies that try to skirt the law.

The promotion and preservation of Arkansas’ FOIA is a partnership between our government and its citizens. The attorney general’s office collaborates with the Arkansas Press Association and Arkansas Broadcasters Association to publish a FOIA handbook and distribute it to anyone interested in learning how to attend government meetings or request public records. A Freedom of Information Task Force, created by state law in 2017, evaluates any legislative proposals that would affect the state’s FOIA. It consists of members appointed by government leaders, press associations and civic organizations.

We’re serious about sunshine around here. Which is why we’re calling all hands on deck to prevent the governor from curtailing our ability to hold our leaders accountable.

“They don’t care about transparency,” Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said of people “weaponizing” FOIA to investigate her administration. “They want to waste taxpayer dollars, slow down our bold conservative agenda and frankly put my family’s lives at stake.”

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders announces a special legislative session in a press conference on Sep. 8, 2023 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Thomas Metthe)

Sanders has called a special session of the Arkansas legislature this week focused, in part, on “streamlining state government.” She’s referring to House Bill 1003, designed to add new exemptions to the state’s FOIA and all but eliminate the ability to recover expenses from having to sue a government agency that refuses to comply.

The most impactful new exemption would allow state agencies to hide records related to the “deliberative process” of government. The purposefully vague clause could restrict the public from seeing a wide range of communications that reveal, well, anything but the final product officials choose to make public.

“If this exemption becomes law, Arkansans will overnight go from the strongest open records law in the country to the weakest,” Fort Smith attorney Joey McCutchen told Talk Business & Politics.

Sanders’ office has framed the amendment as a way to align Arkansas’ FOIA more closely with the federal version. It’s a sharp departure from the governor’s typical anti-Washington brand of Arkansas exceptionalism, instead advocating to lower her state’s standards to mirror that of a secretive “deep state.”

Sanders’ belief that government expediency is more important than the public’s right to know what that government is doing defies the core of conservatism and the political spirit of the state she serves.

“Weakening the FOIA isn’t the conservative move,” an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial asserted. “It’s very much a leap into theory, throwing away a tradition that Arkansas has of being one of the best states in the nation when it comes to government transparency.”

But what of the task force? Sanders bypassed it* by advancing the measure as an emergency. Why? At last the real reason we’re here – a local blogger and FOIA aficionado, Matt Campbell, has been trying to figure out why the governor is such a frequent flyer on a taxpayer-funded state police jet, and who is joining her on some flights that seem strangely crowded (including an 11-minute flight from Fayetteville to Rogers, towns separated by about 20 miles of interstate).

*Update: The FOIA task force met Monday morning and voted unanimously to strongly oppose the bill. The rushed timing preventing proper review was one of the stated reasons for opposition.

Flight records obtained by Matt Campbell (Twitter/@BlueHogReport)

Sanders claims being able to use FOIA for this rather routine purpose threatens the safety of her children. Thus, action must be taken immediately in a special session. It’s unclear how retroactively hiding information dating back to Jan. 1, 2022 fits under an emergency need to conceal her future whereabouts.

Republicans hold every statewide office in Arkansas and a supermajority in the legislature. What the governor wants, she gets. But this time, traditional conservatives are pushing back against a distinctly authoritarian measure (curated by my UCA colleague Rich Shumate on the platform formerly known as Twitter).

Republican committees in Pulaski and Saline counties (that’s Little Rock and suburbs) have each published statements opposing the bill, the latter excoriating its sponsoring legislators by citing their own party platform back to them:

“We firmly support transparency and openness at every level of government. Those elected, appointed, and employed in government work for the taxpayers and must provide public information when requested, in line with Arkansas’s Freedom of Information Act.”

Americans for Prosperity, the conservative political action committee founded by the Koch brothers, stated they were “deeply concerned” about the proposed FOIA changes, reminding members that “transparent government is a cornerstone of democracy.”

Self-described conservative local news startup Conduit has also come out against Sanders, calling her measure “the career-ending FOIA bill.”

I teach aspiring journalists who will use FOIA to serve the public interest. It’s a real point of pride to show them how our state rises above the politics of the moment to protect a right fundamental to our democracy. I implore Arkansas lawmakers to do the right thing, rebuff the governor, and demand that we remain an example of government transparency and accountability to the rest of the nation.

If you live in Arkansas and would like to contact your legislators, a list can be found here.

[Quoted] A president inaugurated; another deplatformed

Media research and comms professor Dylan McLemore tweeted this on Tuesday night, and I think it was spot-on. “I know he has a few more hours,” McLemore tweeted, “but it feels like Donald Trump’s presidency ended when his Twitter account was taken away.”

As Joe Biden was set to be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States, his predecessor – capable of dominating a media cycle like no other – had become largely silent.

I appeared on Al Jazeera English shortly after the insurrection to talk about Donald Trump’s social media ban, and noted that as president, he continued to possess one of the largest platforms of any person on earth. And yet, in the final weeks of his presidency, he really didn’t use it. Without the ability to tweet stream of consciousness from his phone, the president’s press shop basically called it a term.

I appreciate Brian Stelter fitting the observation into a very busy news day.

Read the entire CNN Reliable Sources newsletter here.

See more of my media appearances here.

White nationalists tricked media about school shooter… and fooled me too

What went wrong, and how it fits into the new age of misinformation.

A few hours after a gunman opened fire on his fellow students in Parkland, Florida, alt-right websites like Infowars were already trying to blame Muslims, Communists, Trump opponents, democrats… anyone and everyone on their enemies list.

The problem isn’t “waiting to politicize” — that ship has long since sailed — it’s creating downright false narratives to affirm one’s own “side.”

One Twitter user who goes by “Respectable Lawyer” had a viral moment debunking the Infowars conspiracy (not even addressing the typical Alex Jones line that the shooting was a “false flag” carried out by actors).

The following afternoon, the Anti-Defamation League reported that it had spoken to the leader of a white nationalist group called Republic of Florida who claimed the shooter was a member. Reporters began trying to confirm. The AP, ABC, and the Daily Beast all spoke to the group leader and found corroborating sources on social media.

They ran the story. Others picked up on it. I, having read versions published by the AP, LA Times, BuzzFeed, and the Daily Beast, shared the latter to my Twitter followers.

It was all an orchestrated hoax.

Continue reading “White nationalists tricked media about school shooter… and fooled me too”

Trust in a fake news world

“Fake news” defined an election, and continues to play a prominent role in the presidency of the candidate that most benefited from all of its forms. Gather a bunch of journalism educators together, and it’s no surprise we’re going to want to talk about it. That’s what happened in Chicago at the 2017 annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC). Continue reading “Trust in a fake news world”

Assimilation vs. Contrast: Making sense of the relationship between biased assimilation and hostile media perception

How do partisans arrive at seeing the world differently than the rest of us? I combed the research that’s been done, and look at where we need to go next.

This paper was presented May 27, 2017 at the International Communication Association Annual Conference in San Diego, Calif.

Political ideologues, religious zealots, die-hard sports fans… people who are heavily invested in a “side” tend to see the world differently than those who don’t have a dog in the fight. Over time, we’ve amassed a wealth of research that exhibits partisans entrench in their positions either by merging evidence into their argument that probably doesn’t belong (something called assimilation), or by dismissing any threatening information as irrelevant, biased, or hostile (contrast).

What’s less clear is how the partisan mind determines its method of biased information processing – how do we choose between assimilation or contrast?

The two have largely been studied in their own separate arenas, but it makes sense for us to come together. The connection has been there for a long time, dating back to the Sherifs’ work on social judgment, which suggested “latitudes” of acceptance or rejection of dissonant messages. More recently, Albert Gunther and colleagues suggested an assimilation-contrast continuum.

But how would that work? I examined the existing literature within two theoretical frameworks – biased assimilation and hostile media perception, to search for key predictors. Those can be grouped into two primary categories: Continue reading “Assimilation vs. Contrast: Making sense of the relationship between biased assimilation and hostile media perception”