Meet Cute

Welcome to August. Here in Washington, the news pace is slower with Congress on recess, making it the perfect time to take out journalists you’ve been wanting to get to know better. So how do you get the relationship off the ground? 

Back when I was at the Associated Press, a boss would compare source relationship building to dating. 

Start slowly. Send a note to let them know you follow their coverage and would love to be a resource. The first time you meet, just get to know one another. No fast moves – meaning don’t come with a big ask off the bat. 

Get their number. You’ll want to stay in touch and while email is good in the beginning, you’ll want a cell to text or call to grow closer.

Keep in contact. Let them know about developments you are seeing. It’s best when this intel comes without an ask but as a genuine offer to be helpful. Think about meeting their needs first, and yours will naturally follow so it’s a mutually beneficial relationship. 

Compliment, but don’t go over the top. Follow their coverage closely and send them notes when you appreciate what they are producing. Just don’t become a suck up and give them the ick. 

Play the field. Everyone knows both sides are seeing other people, but no one wants to hear about it so be discreet. Don’t ever tell what you’re discussing with other journalists, especially anything their competitors are working on. That’s a trust killer.

A new era of transparency in reporting cyber incidents—and attention to them—has arrived.

Public companies that experience a cyber incident will now be required to publicly disclose details to the SEC within four business days after the victimized company deems the incident “material.” 

The finalized rule will result in a huge influx of incident disclosures from which journalists, analysts, investors and others will feed. Couple the new rule with more sophisticated and outspoken hackers, and companies face an even more perilous cyber communications landscape. The need for preparation and thoughtful, strategic communications throughout a cyber incident has never been greater or more important.

The new requirements will compel publicly traded companies to disclose details around the incident’s “nature, scope and timing,” as well as its impact on the company. They require companies to “describe their processes, if any, for assessing, identifying, and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats.” 

The new rule will also require public companies to “describe their boards’ oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats and management’s role and expertise in assessing and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats.”

The new rules will go into effect in phases over the coming months.

July saw some of the Biden administration’s most prominent actions to date to address concerns around AI, but legislative guardrails are likely out of reach for now.   

Last month, the White House announced seven tech companies – Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI – have pledged to mitigate the risks of AI with voluntary commitments centered around ensuring safety, security, and trust. The commitments included testing products for security risks and using watermarks to clearly identify for consumers the use of AI-generated material. Following the announcement, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), sent a letter to President Biden, urging the administration to build on the voluntary commitments.

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Anthropic furthered their commitments by announcing the launch of an industry-led body, dubbed the Frontier Model Forum, to develop safety standards for generative AI.

Seventy-one percent of American adults say they want Congress to turn these commitments into legal requirements. But members’ different proposed approaches, August recess and a busy fall of must-pass bills make the prospect of any significant AI legislation passing this year slim.

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) told reporters that unlike Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) moves toward a broad, bipartisan AI package in the Senate, in the House the “bipartisan instinct is to not do comprehensive – because Congress rarely does comprehensive well – and do sort of a clinical, targeted, iterative approach to AI regulation.” 

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), Chair of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has introduced acollection of bills focused exclusively on AI’s application within the federal government, with the hope that such legislation will face less opposition and establish rules that will eventually trickle out into the private sector.