WatchDog

When the Trump-era Environmental Protection Agency changed regulations governing freedom of information requests, journalists worried they were making it easier for political appointees to interfere with disclosures. Now the Biden administration is proposing a rules revision. But, as the latest WatchDog Opinion argues, it’s missing an opportunity to rid the regime of those critical flaws.

A scandal at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over regulatory capture of some toxic chemical officials has surfaced another serious issue — the EPA says it can’t provide related phone text messages. But it’s required to do so by law. And for environmental journalists, access to such records is key to holding the agency to account, argues WatchDog Opinion.

The Department of Justice’s new regulations around reporter’s privilege — the protection of journalistic sources and notes — is a noteworthy advance. But the WatchDog Opinion column calls for more: a federal shield law that is less vulnerable to weakening by subsequent administrations. A take on the new regs, the state of current law and prospects for congressional action.

A new quarrel over climate reporting, prompted by an editorial charging “censorship,” has the WatchDog troubled by the difficulty of finding a path for transparency. The latest WatchDog Opinion takes a look at the dispute, how online platforms like Twitter fit in and the limits of the laws on disinformation in the United States and Europe, all as part of an effort to chart a path forward for journalism.

Solid data can fuel great journalism. But the data must come from somewhere. For environmental reporters, one critical source is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Access to its data, however, is not always as free as journalists would like. So a new WatchDog takes an (admittedly geeky) look at the agency’s open data plan to clarify its efforts to promote access.

A recent climate change disinformation kerfuffle involving House Republicans and White House climate czar Gina McCarthy (pictured, left) is an excellent reminder of how journalists can get caught up in the decades-long campaign to deny climate change, argues the latest WatchDog Opinion column. A warning about the effort to weaponize the idea of transparency when it comes to climate change.

The Freedom of Information Act offers critical access to journalists — that is, when it’s working well. The latest WatchDog Opinion digs into the latest reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to see how well it lives up to its FOIA requirements and finds that despite progress, the agency continues to fall short on important measures. Plus, insight into how to work the system.

A growing number of U.S. dams are in poor condition — with potentially lethal results. But the latest WatchDog Opinion argues that equally troubling is that that information is kept secret from the public and journalists in a national database.

The public’s right to know about toxic and hazardous chemicals is currently limited by trade secret rules that no longer serve any true purpose, argues the new WatchDog Opinion column. And a pending federal rulemaking is an opportunity for journalists to make the case to draw back the curtain, for the sake of their reporting and so that they can better cover their communities’ risks.

The Biden administration’s “whole-of-government” attack on climate change has increasingly focused on the financial arena, with the most recent move a vote by the Securities and Exchange Commission to draft rules requiring publicly traded corporations to disclose climate risks. Industry and GOP opponents are preparing for the fight over the complex regulations, and WatchDog Opinion argues environmental journalists have a big stake.