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.
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.
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.
Bush Appointee?
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
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.....
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.
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?
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.