I posted this to the Archives List earlier this afternoon. My guess is
that many of you who follow archival access issues subscribe to that
List as well as to Recmgmt-L. In case there are people here interested
in the NARA "reclassification" story who don't subscribe to the
Archives List, here's what I posted:
The Washington Post's national security correspondent, Dana Priest,
[was] online "live" [earlier today] taking Q&A.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/17/DI2006
021701706.html
(registration required)
I submitted a question in advance, sending it in from home this morning
before coming to work. My question dealt with the NYT
"reclassification" story and the National Archives. Ms. Priest chose to
answer the question. Here is the pertinent portion of the Q&A. Please
note that my focus is on public ignorance of the National Archives, its
role, position within the government, etc., and that in posting the
question, I did not take a position publicly on the reclassification
issue as such:
"Arlington, Va.: The New York Times reported on February 21, 2006 that
"In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives,
intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands
of historical documents that were available for years, including some
already published by the State Department and others photocopied years
ago by private historians."
I've noticed that in responding to questions in Live Online chats,
Washington Post reporters sometimes respond to questions by saying that
certain issues will be "left to historians" to sort out. Historians
rely in large part on the ability of the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) to do its job. But your newspaper makes little
effort in its reporting or in its opinion pages to explain to readers
how the National Archives operates, what constrains NARA from releasing
information to historians, or what is at stake in issues such as the
removal and replacement by the President of the U.S. Archivist. A
records manager I know told me that a representative of your
newspaper's Outlook section told him last year that archival issues
were "boring." What's your take on the general lack of interest in
recent years by the Washington Post in the National Archives? Why did
it fall to a rival newspaper to break the reclassification story?
Dana Priest: It fell to a rival because we weren't on the ball enough
to scoop The Times on an excellent story that, really, was out there
for the taking. That happens sometimes, which is no excuse. And that's
why it's good to have great competitors to keep us on our toes. I can't
vouch for your other comments about The Post's approach to the National
Archives except to say that there probably is not one "approach," that
as reporters, collectively, we don't pay as much attention to it--or to
the general issue of creeping secrecy--as we should. Keep pushing."
Maarja
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|