by Susan J. Demas
February 1, 2009

When the new president held a swearing-in do-over a day after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed a line at the National Mall, Barack Obama made the mistake of shutting out the Washington press corps.

Instead of allowing a pool photographer into the Mural Room, the White House released a few official shots, which some outlets sniffed at and refused to use (an Associated Press official dubbed them “visual press releases”).

This kerfuffle overshadowed a much more monumental act that Obama made, quite purposely, on his first day in office. He sent out a memorandum on reviving the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), declaring to notoriously stingy government agencies that “in the face of doubt, openness prevails.”

After years of assault on this crucial right, one might have expected every editorial board from Tallahassee to Tacoma, Washington, to have penned paeans to the new president. Good data and information are the bread and butter of the news business (or they should be), but too often we’re left in the dark. And that means the public, which is usually too busy to watchdog officials, is shut out as well.

But curiously, there’s been scant reaction to Obama’s monumental memo.

What has eaten up a lot of ink is Obama’s tussle with the press corps on his third day. Forty-four trotted down to the briefing room for a breezy hello with reporters, but brushed off questions from Politico’s Jonathan Martin about the deputy defense secretary’s lobbyist ties. This brief but tense exchange has provided the online site with about a half-dozen huffy posts about Obama’s true commitment to transparency, his body language and Martin’s bruised ego.

As a journalist, I’ve been dismayed by Obama’s hands-off approach to the media throughout his campaign. After the considerable backlash from Republicans and conservative talking heads during the campaign, many reporters are eager to prove they’ll be tough as nails with Obama and not “in the tank.” I do believe Martin had every right to ask the question. It’s no secret that we in the Capitol press corps frequently grouse about the minimal and carefully controlled access to the governor. (Indeed, many of my colleagues have been singing that song since Bill Milliken retired to Traverse City).

But we don’t do ourselves any favors with sanctimonious grandstanding, feeding the elite media image. I think those of us in Lansing, who somehow survive sans six-figure salaries and Prada overcoats for our live shots, generally get that we’re not the story.

The thing about FOIA is that it’s not about us, which is why it’s so important. It is the last line of defense of the public’s right to know — which, after all, is the purpose of a free press. Fun fact: the law is actually used most by government agencies checking up on one another. In an ideal world, information should flow much more easily, but at least the law’s there to back you up.

I’ve written my fair share of FOIA requests, and some of the investigative stories I’ve been able to chase as a result have been the most rewarding of my career. One series I did on a Saginaw County township’s legal woes and their astronomical expense led to the recall of most members of the township board.

But we’re not always successful. I’ve seen reporters forced to FOIA for the most mundane things like city council meeting minutes. By the time they finally got a response, their stories would get slashed down to blurbs because the information was so outdated. I’ve watched colleagues tangle with police to get reports on assorted lawmakers, often unsuccessfully, which is not the way this is supposed to work.

And I vividly recall an editor at a mid-size paper I worked for climbing on his high horse about a county health department that wouldn’t fork over the name of a whooping cough victim. “Don’t mess with the media,” he declared. When the county attorney laughed at our FOIA request, said editor promptly informed me the paper wouldn’t pay to sue for the information and that was the end of that. Time well spent.

Yes, Michigan’s FOIA law definitely could use some teeth. And officials could use some pointers on what the measure really means, although plenty are content to feign ignorance to avoid coming clean to the public.

But at least we have some change on the federal level, after years of the media being told executive privilege protected everything from the vice president’s energy meetings to White House memos on torturing detainees.

I’ve always wondered why edit boards don’t ask candidates about their position on FOIA as a key criterion for endorsement. It’s a fundamental issue for our business and our customer base — the American people.

Here’s hoping the president’s memo ignites better journalism and more people’s interest in the inner workings of their government. But it should also be a potent reminder for the media, which is in a profound economic and identity crisis, about why we’re here. And why it’s so important for us to survive.

Susan J. Demas is a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service. She can be reached via email or http://susanjdemas.blogspot.com.