Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of our recent presidents have ever told entire departments not to release scientific research, not to speak to the press, not to publish messages on social media, and not to send any emails without having them reviewed....
“Yesterday, we sent an email message about Agency informational products like news releases and social media content,” [Chavonda Jacobs-Young, ARS administrator] wrote in the email, which was shared with BuzzFeed News. “This internal email was released prior to receiving official Departmental guidance and is hereby rescinded.”
Glad to see this. The others need to be rescinded. I know I contacted my elected officials about this and a lot of people did in order to let them know that this was disturbing and not acceptable to the public.
Furthermore, if you would like an example of what some of these departments can do and have done in the past regarding the control of how they release information here is a good article to read:
How the FDA Manipulates the Media
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been arm-twisting journalists into relinquishing their reportorial independence, our investigation reveals. Other institutions are following suit"
"But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR's reporter could and couldn't interview."
"Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead."
"This kind of deal offered by the FDA—known as a close-hold embargo—is an increasingly important tool used by scientific and government agencies to control the behavior of the science press."
"We only know about the FDA deal because of a wayward sentence inserted by an editor at the New York Times. But for that breach of secrecy, nobody outside the small clique of government officials and trusted reporters would have known that the journalists covering the agency had given up their right to do independent reporting."
"Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing picture of the tactics that are used to control the science press. For example, the FDA assures the public that it is committed to transparency, but the documents show that, privately, the agency denies many reporters access—including ones from major outlets such as Fox News—and even deceives them with half-truths to handicap them in their pursuit of a story. "
"By using close-hold embargoes and other methods, the FDA, like other sources of scientific information, are gaining control of journalists who are supposed to keep an eye on those institutions. The watchdogs are being turned into lapdogs. "
"
The press corps is primed for manipulation by a convention that goes back decades: the embargo. The embargo is a back-room deal between journalists and the people they cover—their sources. A source grants the journalist access on condition that he or she cannot publish before an agreed-on date and time.
A surprisingly large proportion of science and health stories are the product of embargoes. Most of the major science journals offer reporters advance copies of upcoming articles—and the contact information of the authors—in return for agreeing not to run with the story until the embargo expires. "
In fact, if you read that article, Obama ordered the EPA in the past to censor employees for releasing information.
/thread fail
Not the same thing.
Social media sites were not told not to post. Scientific research was told to halt and not be published on websites. Task Orders and grants were not told to halt.
Scientific research and the social media sites are of the utmost concern of mine. FWIW, I don't have a problem with Trump's wall, him getting the pipeline built, him doing any of his other campaign promises either, but I draw a line on freedom of speech and freedom of the press and I especially don't support any scientific research being removed from the public domain, not even junk science, like many of the vaccine "studies" cited by anti-vax people who I don't agree with. There is no reason to remove any scientific research, most of which is paid for by public dollars, from a website or to have it not published on a website until the president can review it. The president is not a scientist. Once his staff is in place, he can hire his own scientist and conduct their own studies to prove what they want to prove, but leave the other stuff there and let people make their own decisions. I also want to know what the government agencies are doing, which most post to their twitter and FB feeds regularly in order to keep the public in the know.
Furthermore, if you would like an example of what some of these departments can do and have done in the past regarding the control of how they release information here is a good article to read:
How the FDA Manipulates the Media
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been arm-twisting journalists into relinquishing their reportorial independence, our investigation reveals. Other institutions are following suit"
"But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR's reporter could and couldn't interview."
"Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead."
"This kind of deal offered by the FDA—known as a close-hold embargo—is an increasingly important tool used by scientific and government agencies to control the behavior of the science press."
"We only know about the FDA deal because of a wayward sentence inserted by an editor at the New York Times. But for that breach of secrecy, nobody outside the small clique of government officials and trusted reporters would have known that the journalists covering the agency had given up their right to do independent reporting."
"Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing picture of the tactics that are used to control the science press. For example, the FDA assures the public that it is committed to transparency, but the documents show that, privately, the agency denies many reporters access—including ones from major outlets such as Fox News—and even deceives them with half-truths to handicap them in their pursuit of a story. "
"By using close-hold embargoes and other methods, the FDA, like other sources of scientific information, are gaining control of journalists who are supposed to keep an eye on those institutions. The watchdogs are being turned into lapdogs. "
"
The press corps is primed for manipulation by a convention that goes back decades: the embargo. The embargo is a back-room deal between journalists and the people they cover—their sources. A source grants the journalist access on condition that he or she cannot publish before an agreed-on date and time.
A surprisingly large proportion of science and health stories are the product of embargoes. Most of the major science journals offer reporters advance copies of upcoming articles—and the contact information of the authors—in return for agreeing not to run with the story until the embargo expires. "
None of these have anything to do with the executive of our nation - i.e. the President instructing federal departments not to post on social media, not to send emails without review, not to publish scientific research, not to attend scheduled conferences without permission/review, etc.
Furthermore, if you would like an example of what some of these departments can do and have done in the past regarding the control of how they release information here is a good article to read:
How the FDA Manipulates the Media
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been arm-twisting journalists into relinquishing their reportorial independence, our investigation reveals. Other institutions are following suit"
"But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR's reporter could and couldn't interview."
"Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead."
"This kind of deal offered by the FDA—known as a close-hold embargo—is an increasingly important tool used by scientific and government agencies to control the behavior of the science press."
"We only know about the FDA deal because of a wayward sentence inserted by an editor at the New York Times. But for that breach of secrecy, nobody outside the small clique of government officials and trusted reporters would have known that the journalists covering the agency had given up their right to do independent reporting."
"Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing picture of the tactics that are used to control the science press. For example, the FDA assures the public that it is committed to transparency, but the documents show that, privately, the agency denies many reporters access—including ones from major outlets such as Fox News—and even deceives them with half-truths to handicap them in their pursuit of a story. "
"By using close-hold embargoes and other methods, the FDA, like other sources of scientific information, are gaining control of journalists who are supposed to keep an eye on those institutions. The watchdogs are being turned into lapdogs. "
"
The press corps is primed for manipulation by a convention that goes back decades: the embargo. The embargo is a back-room deal between journalists and the people they cover—their sources. A source grants the journalist access on condition that he or she cannot publish before an agreed-on date and time.
A surprisingly large proportion of science and health stories are the product of embargoes. Most of the major science journals offer reporters advance copies of upcoming articles—and the contact information of the authors—in return for agreeing not to run with the story until the embargo expires. "
I am FOR censorship against false information that can be used to mislead the public. YOU should be for that as well. I am NOT for censorship to release factual information to the public. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom of Government to willingly try to dupe the American people to push an agenda. I want to make sure that is not their goal when information is presented.
I am FOR the press NOT being allowed to be provided false information immediately after a controversial election without review that they can then put their spin on to give to the American public. We all know the media will show their bias and any opportunity to put a spin on a story to highlight their opinion. I, as an American, do not want to only hear their bias. I want to hear facts that have been vetted as facts so as to form an unbiased opinion.
If that makes me un-American, then I guess I need to go pull the American flag off my front porch and toss it in the trash.
Yes, both of the bold make you unAmerican.
I am not for any censorship at all.
I am not against the press publishing any "false information."
On the press itself, I detest Breitbart, Alex Jones/Infowars, DailyKos, NaturalNews and others - yet I do not want them censured or banned from the public domain even though all of the above and many others provide "false information that can be used to mislead the public."
It is odd that they cannot post scientific reports. It is odd that they have been told that they cannot post scheduled webinars or speak about research to the media or TALK to the media.
In our country we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. ALL government agencies work on behalf of the people. We have a right as Americans to know about what they are doing.
All new administrations get their people in place and eventually run agencies as they like; however they have never put a gag order on all communications to media in various departments. This is highly unnecessary. Honestly, I did not vote for Trump but I was very willing to give him a chance and especially so in regards to the economy and trying to get people more jobs since I do think that that is important to people.
Putting a gag order on our government though, is unacceptable to me. I expected him to do all of these EOs about the wall, to repeal ACA, to repeal DACA and other political issues, and to even steer EPA and USDA and Education and HUD towards programs that he wants them to go toward - but freedom of speech and freedom of the press are VERY important, core tenets of American government and society and this sort of behavior is dictator-ish.
The article posted said they will still release scientific reports, so I'm not sure where you got that.
The belief many seem to have here is that federal employees have unfettered ability to speak to the press. The reality is that only a handful of people in any given agency are allowed or have ever been allowed to speak to the press without approval.
They changed the person approving messages temporarily until they get their people in place at the agencies in question. Big whoop.
There is nothing dictator-ish about it. Smart business. The way all corporations and large organizations operate.
As for knowing what they are doing, all they should be doing right now is holding down the fort on their essential missions and if they are really smart they are sitting at their desks making cases for programs/budgets they believe are important so they can intelligently brief their new bosses.
...Maybe, unlike yourself, I know how to read and I am not blinded by any candidate or party loyalty when it comes to any President.
No where in your link does it say there was a ban on releasing scientific studies or in issuing awarded grants or to stop posting on social media sites.
And FWIW, I'm very knowledgeable about Obama's secretive nature and I didn't like that about him either. But he never crossed this line. I very seriously appreciate our country's "freedoms" and do not care if other people don't agree with me. Everyone has a right to their views and opinions and if the public pays for scientific research, the public has a right to review said research.
You and others like you may not agree because you don't want people to know about things you don't like or agree with. I'm not like that.
On Obama I also contacted my representatives about him and the increase in scrutiny on the media with him and his administration, especially as it related to him allowing the incarceration of journalists and lawyers - one of whom was elderly and cancer stricken.
I didn't give Obama a pass and I don't give Trump a pass.
You do not seem to be as dedicated to our rights as Americans in the same way. You want to villify Obama but will support Trump because you "like" him and his views.
For me - that is unAmerican. I can accept that everyone has their own views but I also expect, as Americans, that we can hold a differing viewpoint from each other and still be civilized and not seek to have a leader, on our own soil, instruct American citizens not to speak when that is a right afforded to all Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
