4 ms·

I'll be the first to agree that the Obama administration most definitely went against the spirit of the 2008 campaign with its lockdown of certain secrets. That

I'll be the first to agree that the Obama administration most definitely went against the spirit of the 2008 campaign with its lockdown of certain secrets. That said, I find the headline number to be completely useless without comparison data. What was the ratio under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford? Also need to see trends of number and type of requests over that time. And who's making the requests and what are they for? Are we talking about requests for troop locations (reasonably rejected), Obama's Kenyan birth certificate (spurious and nonexistent), or investigation results in re torture and the financial crisis (legitimate and embarrassing)?

Shivetya 11y ago
I am certainly not one to defend this Administration but it is very easy to declare something while running for office as well as when you initially take office. Then reality hits. Pretty much your ideals if they did exist will be buried under the bureaucracy. It isn't as if he gets to decide what is released and what isn't. Some functionary is making that determination and likely going the safe route each time. Even if he did make a decision prior agreements with others can put a block in. BTW, a wonderful site http://www.foia.gov/data.html http://www.foia.gov/data.html
- mindslight 11y ago
  What a charitable way of stating that campaigns are empty marketing, and that after the election only serving the status quo matters. I just wish people had long term memory, so they'd stop serving as enabling patsies.
  - bdcravens 11y ago
    Perhaps this is important to remember in the coming months. For example, if you look at Cruz's first day promises, for example, it's ridiculous. The scary thing is that even though he's a racist hate-mongerer, Donald Trump might be the most honest one on either side.
    - HillaryBriss 11y ago
      Trump appears to actually believe he can make his promises come true. And in that sense he can be said to be more honest than a lot of garden variety, cynical politicians. At the same time, he doesn't seem to have his facts straight about a lot of important things. One picture of Trump that emerges is: strong-armed CEO surrounded by yes-men and sycophants. He's used to going unquestioned. He's used to "being right" just because people around him affirm his statements without questioning them. He seems to live in a fact-bubble of his own creation. But because it's different (and to many Republicans and a few others, more appealing) than the fact-bubble around Washington, he polls well. But what's actually going to happen if he gets elected?
      - mindslight 11y ago
        He'll do the same thing as every other government salesman - make headway on actions that benefit some entrenched power, and forget about anything that would disrupt the gravy trains.
platz 11y ago
I'm not aware he made any such promises in the 2008 campaign with regard to lockdown of certain secrets?
- skywhopper 11y ago
  There may or may not have been specific promises, but that's why I used the word "spirit". There was definitely a theme of making government more open.
- leesalminen 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCVENhSq9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCVENhSq9M "The most transparent administration in history."
sehugg 11y ago
The article does make one comparison: President Obama's administration censored FOIAs 18% more often than his predecessor, newly-elected-first-year-President Obama.
- noobermin 11y ago
  I think in general, media are getting better with statistics, at least when their biases are threatened (think of "fact checks" that give context to statistics cited by politicians). However, one part of making the media more mathematically literate is by introducing the concept of scale. In physics and engineering, the concept of scale is hammered into us as units or a "baseline" for comparison, or explicitly (Energy scales for an interaction, for example). Without a scale, a number is almost useless. Here, 77% sounds like a large number because it is a clear majority of the total. Here, the implicit baseline is 100%, which makes it sound terrible. However, at least in my field of laser-plasma interaction, an energy conversion efficiency of an interaction of 5% is a lot compared to the typical interaction! That is, if you lose 95% of the energy you put into the system, that's much better than most experiments! The baseline here cannot be 100%, it has to be the efficiency of the typical experiment. It would help if media learn that whenever it reports a statistic or a measurement, it needs to communicate a scale, a baseline, something for comparison. There are times, would you believe it, when 100% isn't the right baseline or the number of fingers on one's hand isn't a useful scale. (1000 people are many compared to my number of close friends but small compared to the US population). Because otherwise, people can get the wrong impression by comparing a naked number to implicit, and meaningless, baselines.

Shivetya 11y ago

I am certainly not one to defend this Administration but it is very easy to declare something while running for office as well as when you initially take office. Then reality hits. Pretty much your ideals if they did exist will be buried under the bureaucracy. It isn't as if he gets to decide what is released and what isn't. Some functionary is making that determination and likely going the safe route each time. Even if he did make a decision prior agreements with others can put a block in. BTW, a wonderful site http://www.foia.gov/data.html http://www.foia.gov/data.html

mindslight 11y ago
What a charitable way of stating that campaigns are empty marketing, and that after the election only serving the status quo matters. I just wish people had long term memory, so they'd stop serving as enabling patsies.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Perhaps this is important to remember in the coming months. For example, if you look at Cruz's first day promises, for example, it's ridiculous. The scary thing is that even though he's a racist hate-mongerer, Donald Trump might be the most honest one on either side.
  - HillaryBriss 11y ago
    Trump appears to actually believe he can make his promises come true. And in that sense he can be said to be more honest than a lot of garden variety, cynical politicians. At the same time, he doesn't seem to have his facts straight about a lot of important things. One picture of Trump that emerges is: strong-armed CEO surrounded by yes-men and sycophants. He's used to going unquestioned. He's used to "being right" just because people around him affirm his statements without questioning them. He seems to live in a fact-bubble of his own creation. But because it's different (and to many Republicans and a few others, more appealing) than the fact-bubble around Washington, he polls well. But what's actually going to happen if he gets elected?
    - mindslight 11y ago
      He'll do the same thing as every other government salesman - make headway on actions that benefit some entrenched power, and forget about anything that would disrupt the gravy trains.

platz 11y ago

I'm not aware he made any such promises in the 2008 campaign with regard to lockdown of certain secrets?

skywhopper 11y ago
There may or may not have been specific promises, but that's why I used the word "spirit". There was definitely a theme of making government more open.
leesalminen 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCVENhSq9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCVENhSq9M "The most transparent administration in history."

sehugg 11y ago

The article does make one comparison: President Obama's administration censored FOIAs 18% more often than his predecessor, newly-elected-first-year-President Obama.

noobermin 11y ago
I think in general, media are getting better with statistics, at least when their biases are threatened (think of "fact checks" that give context to statistics cited by politicians). However, one part of making the media more mathematically literate is by introducing the concept of scale. In physics and engineering, the concept of scale is hammered into us as units or a "baseline" for comparison, or explicitly (Energy scales for an interaction, for example). Without a scale, a number is almost useless. Here, 77% sounds like a large number because it is a clear majority of the total. Here, the implicit baseline is 100%, which makes it sound terrible. However, at least in my field of laser-plasma interaction, an energy conversion efficiency of an interaction of 5% is a lot compared to the typical interaction! That is, if you lose 95% of the energy you put into the system, that's much better than most experiments! The baseline here cannot be 100%, it has to be the efficiency of the typical experiment. It would help if media learn that whenever it reports a statistic or a measurement, it needs to communicate a scale, a baseline, something for comparison. There are times, would you believe it, when 100% isn't the right baseline or the number of fingers on one's hand isn't a useful scale. (1000 people are many compared to my number of close friends but small compared to the US population). Because otherwise, people can get the wrong impression by comparing a naked number to implicit, and meaningless, baselines.