Slashdot Mirror
Highway Safety Agency Silences Engineers
nbauman writes "Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters, according to the New York Times. If the officials want to say anything it has to be off the record. The only one they can quote is Nason herself. However, she refused to be interviewed about the no-attribution policy."
Any government or office within the government (intelligence and other appropriately sensitive agencies aside) who are proud of their work should be encouraged and willing to discuss openly with the people who give them the authority and resources to do their jobs.
This whole issue of lack of transparency is becoming a larger and larger problem with the government and again.... if we are not careful will result into a slide into fascism. Transparency of government is one of the bedrocks of a democracy, hell, even a republic. The current Whitehouse administration has dramatically accelerated this move towards fascism and again, I have to quote Milton Mayer's book They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1939-1945 where an anonymous professor said "What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. "
This sort of thing is a classic fascist move where *free* representatives from government are not allowed to speak to a *free* press. Granted, if you are in the uniformed services or currently employed by a federal office engaged in sensitive work (one of the dozen or so intelligence agencies), then this sort of censorship is acceptable. However, this administration has censored publicly funded scientists engaged in research that potentially impacts upon political policy of the current administration and now National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration officials from talking? One has to wonder just what it is that Bush and Co. want to keep from the American people. What is NHTSA hiding from us?
What moves like this do is open the possibility of lack of oversight when it comes to issues of bribes, coercion and worse. Imagine if a powerful automotive manufacturer were to have a fundamental safety problem with one of their automobiles. Without access by the public and the free press whose job it is to ask the hard questions, we open ourselves up to abuse, manipulation and more unpleasantness than you may imagine.
People need to become more involved in politics, get rid of your disillusionment of representative government and make a difference. Don't be sheep and become satisfied with the current state if you are not happy with it and help, but don't be stupid about it. Work within the system because with the current administration, they will view any extreme political moves as a justification for expanding their controls even further over the populace. Demand more of our politicians. Expect transparency, honesty and be more willing to support impeachment of those officials who do not represent the will of those who elected them. Look beyond single issues in those candidates whom you vote for. Don't be seduced by claims of piety or religious devotion as one mans beliefs are another's anathema. I am not saying that religion is bad as I possess strong spiritual beliefs, but be wary of those who wear religion on their sleeves. And do not accept as this NHTSA official maintains that the only way to say anything is if it is off the record. Ms. Nason, you are a government employee working for an office whose role is to protect the American citizen, save lives and prevent injury. You are not entitled to any special protection under the Constitution than the rest of us and you ultimately answer to the American people, not a transient senior government official intent on building a political legacy. Shame on you for gagging the scientists under your watch whose duty it is to serve the American people and report to them on issues related to safety and well being on the roads and highways.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
because 'off the record' is soo respected by reporters anyway. I don't even want to read TFA to see what spawned this blunder.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
This is to save taxpayer money. After all, if engineers were to let slip how bad our crumbling infrastructure has gotten, we might actually have to fix it, and that's very expensive. And you don't want your taxes raised, do you?
Of course not.
</sarcasm>
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
but you're going to have to speak to a slashdot admin about what i was going to say. what, they don't know what i was going to say? well, shucks, i'm sorry for you not knowing what my thoughts are. what, you think slashdot readers should have a right to read any old comment they want? next you'll be telling me it is the job of us government personnel in non-security sensistive positions to communicate with the people who pay their wages. what nonsense!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Meh... I don't agree with it, but my company has the same terms for employment. If we are contacted by the media, all we can do is refer them to our PR division.
She's probably worried that someone will say the word "bridge."
Many portions of the U.S. infrastructure are crumbling away in front of our eyes. To silence those who could help the less technically inclined understand some of the details of what is going on reflects the worst kind of censorship. The public deserves to know why we our lives are being placed at risk in spite of being one of the world's "superpowers."
Full and open disclosure, along with rational discussion about the best way to put our country back on track, is what we need. Unless they are trying to protect some awful secret...
We all know how the press can get stories wrong, especially technical ones. I am not 100% sure that this isn't a good idea. The press can misquote or take out of context just about anything, so when an engineer says something techincal but is misquoted about how bad things really are it just causes an uproar. No, I haven't RTFA yet, about to, but wanted to get my knee jerk reaction before I do...will post later if my thoughts change after RTFA.
A new source for government conspiracy theories...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
A reasonable compromise should be that personal opinions should be required to be prefaced with, "The following is my personal opinion only and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer". That is quite fair and simple. Maybe require the reporter to sign off on it.
Table-ized A.I.
Having attribution for quotes makes them able to be verified. Disclosing journalistic sources doesn't quite enable the same degree of many-eyeballs as disclosing software source does, since every reader can't just call George Bush up and personally ask him if he said such-and-such, but it does at least assure that if a quote becomes a point of contention and controversy, someone will check it out. Also, if a quote is attributed to a specific individual, there's a reasonable chance of determining whether they said that. If it is just attributed to "sources close to so-and-so" there's really no way to know if someone among this unspecified group of individuals may or may not have said it. In all, "sources speaking on the condition of anonymity say..." is just journalist talk for "rumor has it that..."
Bush Appointee?
Yes, but I don't have to live by the rules your company's HR department promulgates, and even you can leave the firm if you wish. So, you can't be suggesting there's no difference, can you?
To state the obvious, citizenship in a country (or simply being subject to the jurisdiction of its laws and policies regardless of my citizenship) is not an "employer/employee" relationship. "We the people..." ring a bell? Maybe even a particular bell?
lots of that going around lately.
the public's business is PUBLIC, you pinhead appointees. deal with it.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The day our government might start becoming transparent again. Cross your fingers...
Have you read my blog lately?
FTA:
---
Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.
---
This seems to me that this would make it so that the following would be easily plausible:
1. Reporter gets bad news about something which effects the public from one of their engineers, staff members, or experts but cannot attribute their source.
2. Reporter has to leave it as a "trusted source" causing many to doubt the validity of the claims. (Or, alternately it is never released simply because the news outlet can not attribute the source).
3. Since Ms. Nason did not explicitly allow that exchange to take place (or for it to be attributed to the source) the facts can be denied (or at least remain unverifiable) on the grounds that the NHTSA has never "officially" released such information. Or, the Public has never even heard of it depending on how the media outlet handles the previous decision (#2).
This only seems to me to be a method of covering up something. Is there any legitimate purpose for an organization such as this to withhold information from the public? Especially that which would come (potentially) from Engineers or other "experts" on the matters with which they are being questioned.
- Toast
It's the same reason companies have their marketing department tell customers about the product rather than engineers. Marketing will tell you why it's great, engineers will tell you how it could be better.
And naturally, everything the president says or talks to is so confidential that no one he talks to is allowed to discuss it without first getting permission from him.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I am increasingly unsure who won the cold war. Seems as if I live in the Soviet Republic of America. You'll need a passport to visit a national park in the near future, which is just a step to needing to show your "papers" to travel state to state. This is just the latest step on the road to our fascist future. Welcome to America Comrade. Heil Bush. (Yes I understand the commies and fascists were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they both have totalitarianism in common. We are riding down the slippery slope now, and I don't believe we will be able to stop short of a very unpleasant bottom. Best of luck to you.....
"If I'm wrong or missing something please let me know."
Slashdot is paranoid about organizations be it government, business, or the Boy Scouts even if there's no cause for alarm. Just thought you'd want to know.
Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters
Wouldn't it be a shame if the next time NHTSA or Nason has something they'd like to brag about, they call a press conference...
...and nobody shows up?
Political big-wigs thrive off of getting press for their stupid pet projects. The press could kill her career in a heartbeat simply by not covering her and the department.
Please help metamoderate.
Quite funny or even scary this story right after this one: .
:)
Chinese Bloggers Encouraged to Register Contact Info
We all know the Chinese are funding the US deficit but I never knew they were so close to owning the government
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
This is NOT first post!!!! Yeah.. New trend!! Everyone post NOT FIRST POST!!
FTA
""My God," said Joan Claybrook, who was N.H.T.S.A. administrator from 1977 to 1981 and is now president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Given that N.H.T.S.A. is the leading source of automotive safety information in the United States, its researchers are public officials and people are entitled to "know what information they have, whether it is on paper or in their heads," Ms. Claybrook said."
I think I am going to heave, I want to get off this merry-go-around.
I'm a computer nerd who happens to work for the City of New York (you might have heard of us). My agency has a communications bureau whose job it is to deal with the press. Why should I be on the hot seat in front of a bunch of blazing cameras, answering questions from interviewers who are trying to lead me down a dark path toward fanning the flames of controversy? Responding to the media is not my job and our training programs teach us to direct the press to the communications office -- that's the right thing to do. My agency has many specialized bureaus and the issue of the day that the media is interested in is likely to be in a realm in which I am not an expert...even if the issue is within my bureau, I am an expert in TECHNOLOGY and should never put myself in a position where someone is asking me questions about, say Immunology. If I am stupid enough to answer the media's questions, the media will say that "a Health Department official said this, that, and the other," and broadcast it to anyone willing to take it as truth...even though I have my head lodged deep in my @$$. Now, if I see something disturbing while in the course of my official duties, I can not resolve the situation internally (I have excellent management; issues get resolved in my bureau -- this has not hapenned in my 5 years here so far), and the other avenues for resolving this issue are blocked (say, I take the issue to mediation within the city and I get struck down because I'm a peon taking on one of the big-wigs) AND the issue harms the taxpayers that I am working to protect THEN I have an obligation to my community in the City of New York to go to the media with my issue. And if I do this frivolously or am simply in the wrong on the issue, then I need to be a man and face the consequences of my actions, including dismissal and being sued by the city for slander or libel.
No wonder the NHTSA wants silence - the CIA's botched intelligence ain't got nothing on these guys - in 2006 alone, 42,642 people* were killed in traffic accidents - that means they've allowed 14.3 September 11th attacks in just one year! I say we start a we start a War on Cars! *http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_dow nloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Conte nt/RNotes/2007/810791.pdf
You think _either_ Presidential candidate (whoever viably ends up on the ballot) will have _any_ interest in making government more transparent?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
This is going to be the case more and more with government ... and anybody else with any sense.
"Reporters" (and I use the term loosely) are trained by large newspapers, journalism programs and the like to qualify sources and to confirm things.
Now we have a bunch of "journalists" that publish whatever comes into their heads, don't bother to confirm anything and will print nonsense. This isn't just bloggers, this is major publications.
Can you believe that organizations would like to limit the damage that can be caused by some stray remark that is published?
It's not just scientists and engineers who aren't allowed to talk to the press on the record. According to the article, even the NHTSA's own communications office isn't allowed to. This administration makes Jon Stewart's job too easy.
"To silence those who could help the less technically inclined understand some of the details of what is going on reflects the worst kind of censorship."
Ahem!
"If the officials want to say anything it has to be off the record."
Apparently asking if you read the summary would be redundant.
Government doesn't write the news stories, government just makes the news stories that are written more accurate.
Anyone else starting to get the feeling that the reason we topple communist regimes is 'cause Washington doesn't like competition?
Hope is the currency of fools
"Why should I be on the hot seat in front of a bunch of blazing cameras, answering questions from interviewers who are trying to lead me down a dark path toward fanning the flames of controversy?"
Because at some point we hope you have a conscious, for the benefit of everyone.
Hi,
He claims that this story is not true as told: it's simply that the statisticians don't want to be jumped by journalists. Which I could understand.
I'm urging him to login and post the agency's view. Quickly. Before we all move back to the next **AA/NASA/Sony/Sun/Dell/whatever misadventure...
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Most of that accepted.. however, you still draw a paycheck from the citizens of NYC. You are therefore beholden to THEM first and foremost. Seems like you recognize that. If one of these citizens asked you a question related to your job, I think you'd answer. What you would not do is stonewall them or refuse to talk at all (silent treatment). You might say, "I can't answer that because I don't really know. I just deal with the computers." but that citizen is ultimately your boss. I wish everyone who works for the government would remember that.
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Anyone who has ever bad-mouthed the "lazy government unions" needs to think about this type of directive next time they utter those words. Because of Union protections, this type of directive is rarely enforceable against career government employees.
Suppose an employee defies this prohibition and speaks with the press. Management is constrained in how it can retaliate. Certainly it can deny future advancement opportunities, but most employees are semi-immune to this type of intimidation because of the civil service system.
Don't get me wrong -- the same protection that apply to a conscientious employee who feels the need to speak with the press also protects (to a limited degree) someone who sits and plays solitaire all day. But Unions and the civil service system shine at moments like this.
If you people who voted for Republicans for 6-14 years (since 1994 for Congress, since 2000 for Bush's White House) knew then what your Republican government would do with the power you were giving it, would you still have voted that way?
When they told you they would stand for freedom and "personal responsibility", would you have believed them?
And do you believe them now? Most people in Congress, especially Republicans, are the same people holding that office since 1994. And though Bush is on his way out, practically none of the Republicans trying to replace him (those who might actually be the Republican candidate, anyway) show any signs - like condemning him - of doing any different. Of course the Republican Party itself, the center of all the "government doesn't work" ideology, is still the same, with its same sponsors and think tanks.
Will you believe them next year, when they again promise you "personal responsibility", "small, nonintrusive government", "accountability", and all the other promises they've betrayed whenever you've given them the chance?
--
make install -not war
This may seem on the surface like a coverup, but truth be told, most large organizations have rules that state that the average employee should not comment to reporters in any official capacity. I happen to work at such a company, and have no problem not talking to reporters.
My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
"I live just a few blocks from a small 8-lane highway bridge that just suddenly collapsed one day, that everyone may have seen on the news."
London Bridge?
And given the choices, I'd do it again.
Our governor, a Bush ideologue clone elected on a "no new taxes" pledge, has begun to learn that if you ignore your infrastructure, it goes away.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
As a conservative I'm a little disturbed that you claim to be one yet would be happy about increased censorship of government employees. Real conservatives are against government interference, even when the government is your employer.
What's the big deal? What's Reason done for us?
expandfairuse.org
Where did I claim to be a conservative? Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll admit, my OP could easily be misunderstood, but it was intended as commentary on the recent trend for many stories to be tagged (inappropriately) as "liberal whining".
When It Counts.
Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told reporters today, "Since I won't talk to you, just make up a bunch of shit for attribution. However, please don't talk about my goat-porn fetish or my al-Qaeda affiliation".
The same thing was done with the Real ID Act. I tried to ask some questions on why include the Driver License Agreement which would put traffic tickets and driver records on a North American "Ledger" where records can be accessed ranging from Nunavut all the way down to Cancun and farther. When I contacted the House Judiciary which was chaired by Francis James Sensenbrenner, Jr, I was told in no uncertain terms that it was none of my g------d business. Seems like the sunshine laws from the 1960's/1970's are being eroded away. Even some states want to jump on the secrecy bandwagon as well.
That we will see much more reporting on the condition of the country's infrastructure from "Anonymous Cowards".
What?
Sorry about that. I'll keep my point but redirect it toward a hypothetical pseduoconservative facist sympathizer.
The fact you feel sure enough that you'll not be up against a wall at midnight tonight with a blindfold on for complaining should tell you plenty. Nor are we anywhere close to that point.
Nor do we have camps of people like you chipping uranium ore by hand out of mines in Alaska.
Try reading a little about what real fascist states do to the populace before you whine again from your luxury home on your own (read: not state) computer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's all pretty much irrelevant since we aren't talking about random computer programmers who might have to talk to someone and get their picture taken.
We're talking about reporters wanting to speak with the experts in the field to go over the details of something. Would you rather talk to an economist or the PR officer for a fund management company about what the Fed might be about to do with interest rates and what the effects might be? Would you rather speak to a NASA scientist or to a PR officer about the findings from the deep impact mission?
Remember this isn't an orgnisation who just happens to have some engineers, it's an orgnisation that defines the reason for its existance as "Save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity." Lot of good the education and research will do when the engineers aren't allowed to discuss their findings "on the record".
It is not a gag order, it is saying they don't speak in an official capacity.
If engineers no something is dangerous, nothing prevents them to go to the press.
Want to be paranoid? annonymously suggest to a member of the media to get copise of documents. That are all publicly available.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From the NSPE:
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Perform services only in areas of their competence.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Avoid deceptive acts.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
As an engineer, I'm disgusted by Nason's actions.
Yeah, I do answer questions about my job for my fellow citizens, mostly to inform them that the NYC Health Department does much more than perform health inspections in restaurants (one of our most visible roles).
Mayor Bloomberg has a duty to the taxpayers and I answer to my supervisor -- she writes my performance evaluation and approves my time off. The taxpayers are not my direct boss and I have no intention of telling the dirty schmuck who met me at dinner who the lead database administrator in Restaurant Inspections becuase he wants to bribe me and him to get all of his business' failed health inspections taken off his record (that dude can go phuc| My job is to protect the health of New Yorkers and the people that I work with take their job very seriously. I honestly don't think there will ever be a situation where I need to go to the media to resolve an issue of importance to the citizens...but I do have that option in case that day ever comes.
The case where an engineer has a responsibility to talk to the press is if they know of a safety or financial issue that they can not resolve internally (perhaps due to management incompetence or corruption). Short of that, they should focus on their job...which is saving lives.
The only one they can quote is Nason herself. However, she refused to be interviewed about the no-attribution policy.
...And as my boss Ms. Nason once said, "I", "am", "an", "asshat". I think her words stand on their own. Thank you.
I'd tell you about it, but then I'd have to ... sorry, this is off the record now ... kill you.
I do think you are missing a point, and an important one.
There are many shades of "being allowed to speak to the public" when it comes to organisations.
If the only thing Miss. Nason was interested in was ensuring, in good faith, that individuals don't hijack the authority of the organisation, then it would have been sufficient, even appropriate, to insist that only the PR office could speak "for the organisation", and that everyone one else could only speak "on a personal title".
Instead she went a step further. She not just centralised the authority to speak for the organisation, but also forbade individuals to speak out on a personal title. They have to be anonymous. The point is that the expertise in the NHTSA about technical matters is with the engineers, not with management. And unless you wanted to know about NHTSA policies, why would you want to speak to anyone but an engineer?
In fact, the article quotes the former head of the NHTSA:
"My God," said Joan Claybrook, who was N.H.T.S.A. administrator from 1977 to 1981 and is now president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Given that N.H.T.S.A. is the leading source of automotive safety information in the United States, its researchers are public officials and people are entitled to "know what information they have, whether it is on paper or in their heads," Ms. Claybrook said.
This seems a much more reasonable stance: we, the public, pay for the NHTSA, and so we should have some way of knowing what their findings are. And it should be up to *us* to decide if we want to hear the opinion of NHTSA management or its engineers.
Unfortunately it seems typical of a certain philosophy on government to restrict access to potentially unfavourable news as in:
"Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.".
*coughs* "We" were finding a lot of stuff "did not have to be on record". Sorry, but who are you to decide that? It just sounds like a flimsy pretext for spin-doctoring to me, coupled to a corporate philosophy of information-control.
There are many thing that a corporate mindset is more efficient at than a civil-servant mentality, but honesty and transparency aren't among them.
It's not as I put it, it's as the agency in question put it.
But I disagree, when part of you aims is to educate then the experts need to do some communicating with the public. If the agency in question isn't there to educate the public then sure the technical people can hide away in their labs. If a particular engineer doesn't like talking to the press they don't need to, but allowing people to ask technical questions and get answers directly from the technical folk it very useful.
It'll be great fun when the presenting of "A new approach to the geometric control of ultra-long span cable stay bridges" at http://www.bridgemanagement2007.com/ is done by the PR department and not engineers.
While I can understand having communications channeled through an official source, I find it odd that the person has to be the head of the agency.
The words 'spin control' come to mind, especially when that person is a lawyer and the agency is one that affects our lives on a daily basis.
I also wonder if the person has ever heard of the concept of delegating a the job of 'official source' to a department which can assign different people to different projects based on expertise.
It almost sounds like a lawyer attempting to hide things by making everything 'non-attributable' except for what the lawyer says. And I would bet that the lawyer will be VERY careful about making off hand comments, thus keeping the communications from the organization 'consistent' and 'safe'.
From one viewpoint this may be a 'good' thing. We won't have a situation where 'Brownie' makes stupid comments when responding to Katrina.
If part of agency's job is to educate the public, then they will have educators on staff to handle that work, just like the press office is there to handle the press.
In the case of this article, the agency in question is not even letting the press office handle the inquiries...official statements only come from the agency head...so why even bother having a press office?
Let them install the software.
Then, go out and build a computer from parts.
Remember, this is an administration that has repeatedly rejected scientific findings and edited scientific reports to spin things favorably for favored big business interests. The previous surgeon general reports that the White House refused to allow him to publish material if it didn't repeatedly refer to President Bush favorably. Limiting communications about our government's work on highway safety to a political appointee lawyer is going to limit the ability of engineers to discuss matters of extreme public importance -- the safety of our nation's transportation infrastructure. (BTW, the head of the agency put out some canard right after the Minnesota bridge collapse to try to divert attention away from the serious issues of whether our government has skimped on funding for maintenance and safety, and this rule would prevent anyone from providing any other view.)
I found this entry http://www.zimbio.com/Nicole+Nason+-+Department+of +Transportation.
Ms. Nason's career path: Law Student, Lawyer for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, counsel and communications director for Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss of Florida, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Congressional Affairs w/ the U.S. Customs Service, Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs at the NHTSA, and finally Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Between serving as counsel for an insurance company as well as a couple of congressmen and their committees (one who was en route to the Directorship of the CIA), performing as an Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Secretary (Assistant is a *always* a worrisome prefix to a job title, right up there w/ 'vice-') and finally securing a political appointment as head honcho of the NHTSA, I'd say that we're talking about one helluva career bureaucrat who can cover an ass the size Montana before breakfast. She can chew up and spit out the lifetime set of FOI requests from /.'s readership before lunch. I don't even want to consider what she can get covered up by supper-time.
Those bridges are now doomed to drop from the sky like Cincinnati Turkeys the day before Thanksgiving, but she'll spin it so well she'll be getting the Medal of Honor for her anti-terrorism work.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Double agreed. Maybe we can get a chain of flamebait mods going on?
is she someone appointed by reps or bush ?
Read radical news here
You have 10% the chance of dying while driving as someone who smokes. Its like smoking a cigarette a day. I'd kick that habbit if I were you. *lights up*
I have a 25% chance of dying after 70 from smoking. If that's the case, I'll take my chances. Its like waiting to die from fascism, only better.
Now can I please drive without my seatbelt, mommy? I hate you.
No problem - I realize my OP was fairly trollish, but it was intended in the opposite direction from how it was perceived. Seems we may actually agree.
When It Counts.
This is bull shit and should be spread on a cornfield someplace. As this is something that the public DOES have a right to know, I smell a lawsuit, maybe even class action, but certainly for damages large enough to send a message to worthless demi-gods such as this if it results in even a single PI accident.
Maybe its time for another Richard Davis bill? That would send the loudest message I believe. In case there are younger readers here, the Richard Davis bill (it had a number but after 30 some years you expect me to remember that? Dontbesilly dear children) was the congressional response, passed both houses by 98%+ yea vote, removing the 4.7 Million dollars the project was estimated to cost from the BATF budget, enjoining them from moving any other monies they may have laying about into the project, and removing the salary (with similar enjoinders about finding other funds to pay him with) of the little demi-god (Richard Davis) who came up with the project in the first place. Nothing gets you fired quite as positively and finally as an act of Congress.
His offense? He was gonna register all our guns... He went public with the plan while congress was on the campaign trail, BIG mistake, and when they reassembled, the country was literally on fire over it politically, hell I had two personal meetings with my Senator at the time, Pete Dominici, over it myself. First order of business, took about 10 days to get all the i's dotted & t's crossed.
Yeah, we need another Richard Davis bill.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
When in doubt, do it. It's much easier to apologize than to get permission.
-- Grace Murray Hopper
"The funny thing about power is that once it's gained, it's rarely given up voluntarily."
That's why all those system administrators out there bear watching.
"Candidates may shout loudly about how the Executive is getting far too powerful, but once they become the Executive, you can count on them "forgetting" to give that power back."
Heaven help us when the "information wants to be free" crowd comes to power.
The ban is on speaking to reporters *on the record* not on speaking to reporters. The claim in TFA that reporters won't quote someone who is speaking off the record is disingenuous, at best. Either that or the author has never heard of a couple guys named Woodward and Bernstein. Seymour Hersh wrote an article or two using off the record sources, too. And how often do we see mainstream news articles quoting someone (usual in government) who answered their questions "on condition of anonymity?" That would be what, oh, just about every day?
e m.30351f8e7e40c1cbf62a63101891ef9a/
As others have noted, there's nothing particularly unusual about this. Almost all companies have similar policies. I've never worked at one that didn't. Most of you probably haven't, either.
NHTSA staffers will doubtless continue to talk to reporters just like always, except anonymously. There is actually upside in this: if they all speak on condition of anonymity, it gets harder to figure out who spilled the beans.
Oh, one more thing for all you who are talking about bridges falling down: NHTSA doesn't do bridges; they're responsible for vehicle safety:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuit
On one hand the government insists reporters name their anonymous sources. Refusal to answer is contempt of court.
On the other hand, the reporter is forbidden to name their source if that person is employed by the NHTSA.
That sort of dilemna seems destined to trigger a long series of court challenges and appeals. This regulation is one that only a lawyer would impose. Wait, Ms. Nason's background and qualifications are... Oh, never mind!
P.R. === Public Relations == Propaganda
The term was coined by a propagandist because "Propaganda" sounds bad, especially after a world war. Naturally, one would expect a propagandist to leverage their expertise on their own profession and they have.
Controlling the message from public experts so it can be "fixed" by propagandists may not in and of itself be fascist but its certainly a characteristic of commonly known fascist governments. It is actually an essential part of authoritarian government and not of fascism.
American media already acts in similar ways to authoritarian systems and no killings or torcher are required. Its not as easy as knowing most official 'news' is lies like Iranian radio, its more a advanced next generation. Social Engineering.
politicalcompass.org is required reading for anybody who wants to refer fascism
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You really need to sprinkle some paragraph breaks in there for readability.
Reporters and management these days seem to forget that the organization _is_ the people within it. This notion of centralized information flow, although neat on paper, takes away accountability for those higher up. If engineers can't speak on the advise they've given before, if they can't speak on what's been ignored in the past... how can the investigative journalist then investigate? How can then any public official be held accountable for their errors?
.. a public bridge falling down without warning just in front of you.
What is likely to make the public panic is quite a bit more than reports on the highway infrastructure. It would take things like
We aren't talking about epidemics or bioterrorism here, there's nothing to flee from. Bridges don't jump up and attack people not on or under them. The topic just doesn't have that certain zing that might make people get up and leave cities in masses. An engineer misquoted on this matter won't cause the sort of panic that will disrupt society to the point where personal injury or disintegration of the social fabric may result. Whatever is interpreted wrongly by the journalist can simply be sorted out later. Therefore, this centralization of information flow from a public agency seems unwarranted, and a result either of incompetence or of a desire to suppress information.
My agency within the Department of Commerce does the same thing and has for years. If any member of the media or member of congress contacts us we are to say no comment and refer them to PR.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/10/park.police.chief /
It's been three years, so the public has forgotten and the executive can batten down another hatch. Whack-A-Mole anyone?
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
If the American auto safety administration has something to hide, is it American auto related? Sounds like another argument to buy a Prius.
And avoid bridges.
See above.
I'm a Civil Servant and it is illegal for me to unionize. What unions are you talking about? As a mid-level Civil Servant, I am required to deflect all questions from the press to my superior. The retaliation I would face by not following this directive (or any directive) would be that I would get fired. How exactly does Civil Service shine in this matter?
You vill talk to me! or I vill expose your unvillingness to speak on the record!
As far as I can see, if the engineers' job duties involve giving their opinions to the press, they shouldn't be gagged. Otherwise, the Administration, cynical and incompetent or not, is within their rights.
If a drug company is dealing with a crisis regarding safety of their products, they're not going to let their scientists give unbiased professional opinions on the record.
Nobody's a friggin' saint here.
The engineers are undoubtedly justifiably proud of their work, and eager to promote themselves and get more funding.
The elected official undoubtedly feels he/she was elected/appointed by the people, and doesn't want reporters doing an end run, and engineers undermining the official story.
The reporter undoubtedly feels he/she represents the will of the people, and everyone should make his/her job as easy as possible (and OMG people are trying to change the ground rules before I sandbag them!).
Wow, this story has absolutely nothing to do with tech. Its pure liberal tinfoil... big surprise, since slashdot is not a "tech" site, but rather a site for whipping up frenzy and foam for socialists.
Are you in the United States? A Federal Employee? In a security-related field/agency? In management? Who told you it was illegal to organize?
The key is that civil service is not the traditional at-will employment. This is specifically designed to insulate people in your situation from political influence. It's particularly true when someone uses non-government time to make their statements.
The rules can be complicated and there are exceptions to the right to collective bargaining (particularly in law enforcement/national security agencies). You may fall into one of those exceptions, have a particular job, be within a probationary period, or otherwise be misinformed about your rights. I would never advise anyone to take an action that might subject you to retribution without consulting counsel first. However, in my years as a (volunteer) union lawyer for a federal agency, I saw many examples of the civil service system and collective bargaining in action. Sometimes it protected bad employees, other times it protected good ones trying to make a statement.
Funny how the less relevant managers become, the more they need 2 pull rules out of thin air to maintain their power.
What I found most impressive in "All the President's Men" was the actions of Ben Bradley, not of Woodward-n-whatshisname - he never said they couldn't USE what Deep Throat was giving them, he just required that they get multiple attribution of any facts that they were claiming. Reporters who "interview" one source at the NHTSA (or any other government agency) and write a story are just being lazy, and need to get over themselves.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
When Ron Paul becomes elected as President of the US, he will abolish the NHTSA because the organization is unconstitutional. The federal government is no authorized anywhere in the Constitution to deal with roads or traffic.
Libertas in infinitum
for reasons to distrust california goverment,
simply examine ANY firearms legislation
Scientists seek 'truth' (Usually by proving things wrong ;-))
Engineers understand 'truth' and apply it
Propagandists have nothing to do with the truth; they are manipulation tools who's sole purpose is to change perception (which has little to do with the 'truth' other than it might influence how you cover the truth up)
Propagandists are worse than LAWYERS. A lawyer is representing a position as a champion to provide a fair balance between opposing forces; they are civilized version of hiring gunmen (and the powerful still have you out gunned...) Not that all lawyers are honorably fulfilling their purpose. An old west equivalent for a propagandist would be a snake oil salesman
A society with outspoken experts will learn to understand them and not be dumbed down so much they need to be spoon fed sugarcoatings.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Actually I just left, but yeah, I was US Federal and Intel. Maybe that's why I thought the way I did. We simply weren't allowed to unionize. It wasn't told to us, rather we signed agreements...all part of the non-disclosure stuff I believe.