3 ms·

Even the NYTimes has admitted the "omg gagged scientists!" line is standard operating procedure with new Administrations: > “I’ve lived through many transition

Even the NYTimes has admitted the "omg gagged scientists!" line is standard operating procedure with new Administrations: > “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies... Try to save some of your outrage for actual outrageous events.

eplanit 10y ago
This x1000. Beware "outrage fatigue". It has only been a week and it's already exhausting.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  I'm surprised we haven't reached Peak Outrage yet. Lots of outrage stamina.
- ethbro 10y ago
  I dunno, today's BBC had 'US may drop Russian sanctions in exchange for cooperation against terrorism' front and center. Outrage exhaustion is easy to create, but it doesn't mean outrageous things aren't still outrageous.
j2kun 10y ago
I, for one, am using this as an excuse to teach everyone I can about encryption. So I'm willing to live with the faux outrage.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  So why did you wait until now?
  - euyyn 10y ago
    Because people would be more interested and receptive now?
sigmar 10y ago
Did you read the Sunlight foundation post (link in the Nieman piece)? This isn't just about agencies talking to the media. Scientific publications were also restricted.
burkaman 10y ago
But the administration has not earned the benefit of the doubt. The outrage is more directed at what Trump has promised to do (eliminate the EPA, or make drastic cuts, or halt its climate change activities), than what he has actually done so far. He has not earned the trust or respect for anyone to reasonably say "this is routine, I'm sure he won't do anything stupid". You can't always stay silent until after something outrageous has happened. Some things are easier to prevent than to undo.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I am feeling the opposite. For awhile, I figured - This is kinda routine. Democrat, republican - action, counter - and then that "this week at the fed" floated around Facebook and it read like dire predictions of the future. My expectation is increasingly "it is routine that he will do something stupid."
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Well, sure, but in many cases you don't have to guess. The whole "take him seriously but not literally" was stupid, of course you should take him literally. Most of his actions so far have been the first steps of doing exactly what he said he would do, and they should be treated that way, even if in a vacuum they don't seem that bad.
  - vacri 10y ago
    And so this is how he gets to be so destructive, with the bar set so very low. Obama was a statesman, so people measured him against a high bar and often found him lacking. Trump is a buffoon (but who does know how to 'sell' amazingly well), and people are measuring him against a buffoon's bar.
hackuser 10y ago
Trump and his people have openly spoken and acted against the media. Also, IIRC, the prior Republican administration blocked scientists from speaking openly and had politicos edit all communications, while the Obama administration allowed the scientists to communicate unfiltered. One speculative statement from an anonymous EPA official doesn't offset that. > Even the NYTimes has admitted I'm not sure what that means. The Times has reported all sides of the spectrum. The broke the Hillary Clinton email server story, for example, and also Trump's tax returns.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  It's quite common that employees cannot comment on behalf of their employers. EPA scientists are executive branch employees so their boss is Trump. > However, one of the consequences of the election is that the new administration now controls what federal agencies say and what side of an issue they take in a debate about, for example, climate change or reproductive rights. Ref: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/government-employees-get-have-opinions-too https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/government-employees-...
  - hackuser 10y ago
    That justifies Trump's power to do it, but it doesn't make it good or acceptable. The President has the power to do many things that are wrong. Trump could order other employees to invade other countries and to kill and torture people. > EPA scientists are executive branch employees so their boss is Trump. And Trump's boss is the American people. Everyone in the executive branch and throughout the government reports to them, ultimately.
- tropo 10y ago
  Not that it is normally allowed to have underlings spilling data and opinions everywhere, but scientists are special. Conservatives with equal skill go into engineering because that is a more reliable path to a comfortable income. That leaves science with a bias, and that bias is now in conflict with the leadership. Allowing people to have unfiltered communication might be nice, but it doesn't count for much when you already know they mostly agree with you. In case I missed it, was the Obama administration fine with employees expressing opinions that conflicted with Obama's views? That would count for something. For example: coast guard employees endorsing off-shore oil drilling, health and human services employees taking pro-life positions, border patrol agents supporting a wall, military generals opposing non-traditional gender in the military, department of education employees opposing evolution, department of labor employees praising right-to-work laws...

eplanit 10y ago

This x1000. Beware "outrage fatigue". It has only been a week and it's already exhausting.

jjawssd 10y ago
I'm surprised we haven't reached Peak Outrage yet. Lots of outrage stamina.
ethbro 10y ago
I dunno, today's BBC had 'US may drop Russian sanctions in exchange for cooperation against terrorism' front and center. Outrage exhaustion is easy to create, but it doesn't mean outrageous things aren't still outrageous.

j2kun 10y ago

I, for one, am using this as an excuse to teach everyone I can about encryption. So I'm willing to live with the faux outrage.

caseysoftware 10y ago
So why did you wait until now?
- euyyn 10y ago
  Because people would be more interested and receptive now?

sigmar 10y ago

Did you read the Sunlight foundation post (link in the Nieman piece)? This isn't just about agencies talking to the media. Scientific publications were also restricted.

burkaman 10y ago

But the administration has not earned the benefit of the doubt. The outrage is more directed at what Trump has promised to do (eliminate the EPA, or make drastic cuts, or halt its climate change activities), than what he has actually done so far. He has not earned the trust or respect for anyone to reasonably say "this is routine, I'm sure he won't do anything stupid". You can't always stay silent until after something outrageous has happened. Some things are easier to prevent than to undo.

RangerScience 10y ago
I am feeling the opposite. For awhile, I figured - This is kinda routine. Democrat, republican - action, counter - and then that "this week at the fed" floated around Facebook and it read like dire predictions of the future. My expectation is increasingly "it is routine that he will do something stupid."
- burkaman 10y ago
  Well, sure, but in many cases you don't have to guess. The whole "take him seriously but not literally" was stupid, of course you should take him literally. Most of his actions so far have been the first steps of doing exactly what he said he would do, and they should be treated that way, even if in a vacuum they don't seem that bad.
- vacri 10y ago
  And so this is how he gets to be so destructive, with the bar set so very low. Obama was a statesman, so people measured him against a high bar and often found him lacking. Trump is a buffoon (but who does know how to 'sell' amazingly well), and people are measuring him against a buffoon's bar.

hackuser 10y ago

Trump and his people have openly spoken and acted against the media. Also, IIRC, the prior Republican administration blocked scientists from speaking openly and had politicos edit all communications, while the Obama administration allowed the scientists to communicate unfiltered. One speculative statement from an anonymous EPA official doesn't offset that. > Even the NYTimes has admitted I'm not sure what that means. The Times has reported all sides of the spectrum. The broke the Hillary Clinton email server story, for example, and also Trump's tax returns.

caseysoftware 10y ago
It's quite common that employees cannot comment on behalf of their employers. EPA scientists are executive branch employees so their boss is Trump. > However, one of the consequences of the election is that the new administration now controls what federal agencies say and what side of an issue they take in a debate about, for example, climate change or reproductive rights. Ref: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/government-employees-get-have-opinions-too https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/government-employees-...
- hackuser 10y ago
  That justifies Trump's power to do it, but it doesn't make it good or acceptable. The President has the power to do many things that are wrong. Trump could order other employees to invade other countries and to kill and torture people. > EPA scientists are executive branch employees so their boss is Trump. And Trump's boss is the American people. Everyone in the executive branch and throughout the government reports to them, ultimately.
tropo 10y ago
Not that it is normally allowed to have underlings spilling data and opinions everywhere, but scientists are special. Conservatives with equal skill go into engineering because that is a more reliable path to a comfortable income. That leaves science with a bias, and that bias is now in conflict with the leadership. Allowing people to have unfiltered communication might be nice, but it doesn't count for much when you already know they mostly agree with you. In case I missed it, was the Obama administration fine with employees expressing opinions that conflicted with Obama's views? That would count for something. For example: coast guard employees endorsing off-shore oil drilling, health and human services employees taking pro-life positions, border patrol agents supporting a wall, military generals opposing non-traditional gender in the military, department of education employees opposing evolution, department of labor employees praising right-to-work laws...