When transparency fails

When President Barack Obama took office, he committed to a more transparent and open government. Visit www.whitehouse.gov/open/about; this commitment is outlined clear as day.

It’s easy to find updates from the White House on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and even, as announced by the administration last week, Foursquare. At White House Live the public can watch live streams or re-live press conferences and discussions straight out of the White House. These methods of online information-sharing are similar to what many organizations do to keep their audiences informed and engaged, and are useful for staying up to speed on where the president is going and what our government is doing.

However, for a reporter, online access—especially in a place like Washington—doesn’t cut it.

According to a report by the Congressional Management Foundation, “nearly two-thirds of [congressional] staffers 30 and younger feel their offices can control their message on social media.”

But as a reporter, it is important to share the facts surrounding the message: Who does the message affect, what are they saying about it and is the message truthful? It is our job to discover the message outside of the control room.

While technology allows government officials to broadcast its message, it often is a poor substitute for the in-person coverage that is a hallmark of good reporting. Being there also is important for covering news in the event that technology fails.

And yes, the technology does fail.

This summer in Washington, I was stymied on more than one story because organizers said the doors were closed to the press, or in one case, only open to particular news organizations. Two of these events, ironically, were made available for the world to see via live stream. With in-person coverage closed to me, I cut my losses and settled for the live stream.

My first experience covering a live streamed event was a disaster.

We can call the disaster a technology blooper, but for a reporter, technology bloopers have the potential to ruin a story. During the live stream coverage, the disaster appeared in the form of “buffering.”

For 40 minutes, I tried running the live stream on my computer. I tried two or three Internet browsers, two computers and two Internet hook-ups: Wi-Fi and Ethernet. Every effort failed. The sound was choppy, the video was jumping: I could not take comprehensive notes. . My story, at that moment, appeared dead.

The next day I was pointed to a YouTube video that captured the event I missed. Saved. However, reporters do not always have this luxury of time, especially an extra hour or two to “re-cover” something that is already more than a day old.

So how do we work around Washington’s idea of technological transparency, especially when there is no way in the front door?

Several weeks ago, the reporters in my newsroom received some tips from an expert source on covering the White House, particularly when access is hard to come by:

• Find out if the event will be piped into the White House briefing room
• Ask where else the information is available
• Try to interview event attendees once the event is over

They are a good reminder that we should not let the technology dictate the reporting.