Between a rock and a hard place: Framing public organizations in the news

Introduction Public bureaucracies have traditionally been understood as news-avoiding organizations (see van Belle 2003; Cook 2005; see also Thorbjørnsrud et al., Chapter 11 in this volume). They execute important public duties that affect society at large, but ‘hide’ behind elected politicians as spokespersons and behind bureaucratic routines and legal regulations as the rationales for their actions (or lack thereof). This stereotype of news-shunning organizations was famously invoked by Sir Humphrey in BBC’s legendary Yes Minister series. In one of the episodes, Sir Humphrey (as the senior civil servant) for instance discusses whether or not to “suppress” (as the minister puts it) or, in his own words, “not to publish” an unhelpful report. Sir Humprey explains to the, as often, baffled minister that there is an important difference between the two: “Suppression is the instrument of totalitarian dictatorship, we don’t talk of that sort of thing in a free country. We simply take a democratic decision not to publish it.”2 Sir Humphrey’s approach to publicity and transparency represent the stereotype of public organizations in the news. Irrespective of whether or not this stereotype is an accurate description of traditional bureaucratic behavior - historical analyses of public agencies provide reasons to doubt this (see Carpenter 2001; Wilson 1989) - contemporary public organizations are considerably more actively involved with the news media (see Cook, 2005; Deacon and Monk, 2001; Maggetti, 2012; Schillemans, 2012). The advance of freedom of information regulation and transparency has for one thing made the type of secretive behavior that Sir Humphrey exemplifies obsolete (see Meijer, 2014). Furthermore, the mediatization of politics has given the media a more intrusive and important role in policy processes (see Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999; Hjarvard, 2013). And finally, waves of administrative reform around the globe have given many public organizations more autonomy from political decision-makers (see Pollitt, 2003; Verhoest et al., 2010; Schillemans, 2012). This autonomy may make public organizations more susceptible to media attention - which can be, from the vantage point of the organization, both a good and a bad thing - and also opens up strategic opportunities for organizations to (attempt to) exploit the news.