They argue that the last two DA's warts and all, allowed an unprecedented level of direct access by the media to assistant DA's in the office. A public information office might change that dynamic and in fact limit media access:
The taxpayers should be concerned that they are being asked to pay the cost of erecting a sound wall that is bound to obstruct their ability to find out what their government officials are doing.
Magidson argued to commissioners that the office's policy of allowing investigators and assistant district attorneys to talk directly to the press has become difficult to supervise. He plans to install a public information attorney and a public information officer to serve as the "face and voice" of the office in his absence. A secretary would also be employed. Magidson described the positions as liaisons between news reporters and prosecutors.
In theory, such an arrangement could be helpful. It makes it easy for journalists to know whom to call for information. And these officers are good at putting together department newsletters and archives, which Magidson said would be part of their charge.
But what often happens is that reporters are routed to the press officer, who cannot answer their questions because they have no direct knowledge of the matter at hand. A communications professional usually is adept at finding out the information, but if the answers generate additional questions, the "flaks," as they are known, have to go back for further information. It's inefficient, time-consuming and frustrating for reporters trying to learn important and sensitive government information.
Magidson insists that this procedural change will not restrict the flow of information, but how could it not? The flow of information will be restricted to a single channel. His general counsel, Scott Durfee, who is acting as the office's spokesman until the press division is created, said access to assistant district attorneys will be limited. Durfee himself has been among the most accessible employees of the district attorney's office. It will be a loss to the public's right to know if Durfee, a bank of institutional memory, is muzzled by the new media policy.
The past system of course was ad-hoc and subject to the whims of the DA. No reason to believe that similar levels off access would be granted by future DA's. Still, despite repeated calls to change this and that, it's worth pondering whether the status quo ain't that bad, or at least no worse than any proposed change.
