Do you really think a conservative news outlet should be reporting this type of news?
That’s the sort of feedback that John Siciliano, a reporter on energy and environment for the Washington Examiner, claims to have received repeatedly in the early months of the Trump administration. The feedback was coming from the press shop of Scott Pruitt’s Environmental Protection Agency, a pointlessly combative place that tries to secure good coverage via insults. Jahan Wilcox, an appointee in that office, recently called a reporter for the Atlantic a “piece of trash.”
As Siciliano tells it, the root of the EPA’s disenchantment with his coverage stemmed from the Washington Examiner’s place on the Beltway media spectrum. In a recent panel discussion highlighted by Media Matters, Siciliano described the Examiner as a “middle-of-the-road, center-right publication.” EPA’s press people, however, saw it as a center-RIGHT publication, with all the attendant expectations.
“It wasn’t as if I was being antagonistic to the EPA,” Siciliano tells the Erik Wemple Blog. “I was trying to include them in responses, but they were just insistent on us writing a narrative that they were dictating to us. They would have problems with anything we’d write. It’s kind of like they don’t know what reporters do.” A look at Siciliano’s archives shows that he covers … the news. “Watchdog probes EPA’s Pruitt over carbon dioxide remarks,” reads the headline on a piece from March 2017. “EPA backfires in trying to praise Trump’s climate order.” And: “EPA begins scrubbing Obama’s climate legacy from website amid protests.”
Examiner stories that didn’t align with the official EPA concept of an Examiner story drew complaints, says Siciliano. Wilcox attempted to push his “perception of what the Washington Examiner was and what he thought we should be reporting about,” he continues.
The EPA press office knew how to lobby, too. There were calls to Siciliano’s colleagues, as he made clear in remarks at a panel discussion organized by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby and highlighted by Media Matters:
They were basically telling my editors things, that they were giving me news, exclusive news, and that I wasn’t using any of it. And that, “He needs to get on the ball. We’re trying to use you guys to break news.” And it was like, I was explaining to my editors, they would come at me — it was like, “They’re giving you news?” They’re not giving me any news. They’re basically wanting me to be a press release.
The idea, concluded Siciliano, was that the EPA wanted him to serve as its “lickspittle.”
In his panel chat, Siciliano alleged that he was “somewhat barred” by the press office, whereas other people in his office were not. That particular experience isn’t solitary in the world of media-EPA relations. As this blog reported last year, the EPA press office pulled an Associated Press reporter from its master email list. “He’s more than welcome to visit our website,” said an EPA official at the time.
The Erik Wemple Blog asked Wilcox to respond to Siciliano’s criticisms, and received no response. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t comment on the matter, however. After receiving an inquiry from the Erik Wemple Blog, Wilcox forwarded it to Siciliano and litigated the matter with him. “If there is a problem I would encourage you to contact us. I am unaware that we were trying to make you our ‘lickspittle’ and that you were barred as the Washington Post will be reporting,” wrote Wilcox to Siciliano regarding the inquiry of the Erik Wemple Blog. “We invited the Examiner to the EPA for an exclusive interview on September 13, 2017,” noted Wilcox. E&E News recently published the results of a FOIA request showing that the Examiner’s editorial director pitched the publication as an “ideal platform for the discussion of conservative policy ideas.” In his email, which was forwarded by Siciliano, Wilcox added other points: “We did an interview with Paul Bedard around Opening Day and then we invited Josh Siegal to an event at EPA on May 14, 2018.” Siciliano shared the email with the Erik Wemple Blog.
In yet another message to Siciliano (also shared with the Erik Wemple Blog), Wilcox made clear his no-comment posture vis-a-vis the Erik Wemple Blog’s inquiry:
John, Paul and Josh –
John, I have tried to call you and have also sent you an email, both of which have gone unanswered.
I have complained to you about your coverage and my biggest beef is that you do not reach out before you wrote a story. My frustration is always on if coverage is false and if nobody reaches out before they report. I have never called your editor, publisher or anyone else, which you know is 100 percent accurate.
I thought this was somewhat repaired, especially after I came over for an off-the-record coffee at the Examiner (maybe last April). You are welcome to tell whatever side of your story to the Post, I honestly did not know you were unhappy but I also won’t be going through the Washington Post to have this conversation. I have always taken your calls, responded to your inquiries and yes invited the Examiner over for an exclusive interview in the fall, an exclusive interview in the spring (over the topic of baseball with Bedard) and invited Josh over for some event.
Again if you want to chat, I am always available.Jahan
From this point onward, the Erik Wemple Blog will file all comment requests with Wilcox at the EPA, and then check with Siciliano to see if he received the answers. He gets results, as this flow chart illustrates:
A beat reporter sharing the ins and outs of his interactions with an agency’s press office: It doesn’t happen all that often. Journalists prefer to keep quiet about such matters, the better to preserve a working relationship with important officials. Have things gotten that bad? “I think so,” replies Siciliano. “It’s more of like, you know, I’ve been as professional as possible with these people.”