3 ms·

Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, the

Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. One for every man, woman and child! A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. If it was, I imagine they'd have leaked it to a real newspaper and not to the humiliated house organ of a crazy cult leader who had himself proclaimed king of the universe. The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking: the public's response can't be gauged if the public doesn't see the proposal to begin with.

anamax 16y ago
> Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? Almost all of them are preceeded with one or more documents gauging public interest and there are also such documents for policies that don't make the cut. > A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. Oh really? As I quoted "Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding." Maybe they weren't interested in public reaction, but they certainly are thinking of these policies. > The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking The document wasn't "leaked". It was published.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  The document wasn't "leaked". It was published. How do you think the WT knew to look for this specific document? Do you think that WT staffers, when not performing mass cult marriages, read every single government document published in DC? In practice, publishing a random document is insufficient for a trial balloon since the vast majority of published government documents get no attention from the public. That's why trial balloons often involve leaks, sometimes instead of, sometimes in addition to publishing a source document. Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? I don't see your point here at all. There is a very small quantity of information that the media can reliably present to the public every year. The vast majority of bills and regulations can never be presented to the public for trial ballooning, for reasons of bandwidth if nothing else. Which suggests that it is extremely unlikely that this was a trial balloon. Maybe they weren't interested in public reaction, but they certainly are thinking of these policies. That's precisely my point: you have no evidence that they published this specifically to gauge public reaction. Thus you have no evidence of intent. Which means that your trial balloon accusation is evidence-free.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > How do you think the WT knew to look for this specific document? That's your argument? That no one does trial balloons through WT? How do you know that bigger sources were not also informed and decided to sit on it? (I found out about it through a line of contacts that had nothing to with WT.) Suppose we accept your "it's not a trial balloon because it wasn't intended to test public opinion". That leaves us with "it was intended to slip under the radar and to pop up later as a done-deal". Are you happier with that? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a trial balloon. You're free to assume malign intent on their part. >> Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? > I don't see your point here at all. You claimed that the mass of published proposals was somehow evidence against a specific proposal being a trial balloon. Since there's a comparable mass of things that actually become law and/or regulation, that claim doesn't make any sense.

anamax 16y ago

> Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? Almost all of them are preceeded with one or more documents gauging public interest and there are also such documents for policies that don't make the cut. > A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. Oh really? As I quoted "Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding." Maybe they weren't interested in public reaction, but they certainly are thinking of these policies. > The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking The document wasn't "leaked". It was published.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
The document wasn't "leaked". It was published. How do you think the WT knew to look for this specific document? Do you think that WT staffers, when not performing mass cult marriages, read every single government document published in DC? In practice, publishing a random document is insufficient for a trial balloon since the vast majority of published government documents get no attention from the public. That's why trial balloons often involve leaks, sometimes instead of, sometimes in addition to publishing a source document. Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? I don't see your point here at all. There is a very small quantity of information that the media can reliably present to the public every year. The vast majority of bills and regulations can never be presented to the public for trial ballooning, for reasons of bandwidth if nothing else. Which suggests that it is extremely unlikely that this was a trial balloon. Maybe they weren't interested in public reaction, but they certainly are thinking of these policies. That's precisely my point: you have no evidence that they published this specifically to gauge public reaction. Thus you have no evidence of intent. Which means that your trial balloon accusation is evidence-free.
- anamax 16y ago
  > How do you think the WT knew to look for this specific document? That's your argument? That no one does trial balloons through WT? How do you know that bigger sources were not also informed and decided to sit on it? (I found out about it through a line of contacts that had nothing to with WT.) Suppose we accept your "it's not a trial balloon because it wasn't intended to test public opinion". That leaves us with "it was intended to slip under the radar and to pop up later as a done-deal". Are you happier with that? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a trial balloon. You're free to assume malign intent on their part. >> Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? > I don't see your point here at all. You claimed that the mass of published proposals was somehow evidence against a specific proposal being a trial balloon. Since there's a comparable mass of things that actually become law and/or regulation, that claim doesn't make any sense.