4 ms·
Why did your quote ignore the context of that quote? > Whether the cutbacks will affect the quality of forecasts and warnings, “I can’t say for certain,” Marti
by metamet 9y ago
Why did your quote ignore the context of that quote?
> Whether the cutbacks will affect the quality of forecasts and warnings, “I can’t say for certain,” Martin said. “You’re working people double shifts, some people aren’t getting days off, and you’re grinding people down. There is that potential [to affect the forecast quality]. The longer this goes on, the more the potential rises. It’s a long winter ahead.”
> The Burlington Free-Press reported similar circumstances at the forecast office serving its region. “Given our staffing, our ability to fill our mission of protecting life and property would be nearly impossible if we had a big storm,” Brooke Taber, a Weather Service forecaster and union steward, told the paper.
> Susan Buchanan, a spokeswoman for the National Weather Service, pushed back on any notion the organization is neglecting obligations to constituents and the health of its staff. “Let me state emphatically that we would never take an action that would jeopardize the services we provide to emergency managers and the public,” she said. “NWS is taking definitive steps to ensure the health and well-being of our employees through guidance to local managers on scheduling and flexibility.”
Seems far from "just fine".
- timmaah 9y agoI was just stating the NWS side of it since the headline on HN is biased to labor point of view. (I'd probably side with labor on this issue as well, but the headline is clearly biased)
- enraged_camel 9y agoNice concern-trolling.
- metamet 9y agoWell, it is the labor union representing the workers stating it. It's clear in the article and from the context. Omitting that from the title doesn't really detract from message. I get what you're saying, but it's not propaganda, and the NWS isn't even saying they aren't understaffed (with the quote you offered as proof that they disagreed). They are saying they aren't putting their staff in dangerous situations, which is clearly being disputed by the staff and their union. They aren't saying being understaffed is fine.
- timmaah 9y ago“We believe this level is adequate to achieve National Weather Service core functions,”
- metamet 9y ago> While the “ceiling” for the total number of positions is 4,890 per the National Weather Service Table of Organization, the official said the number of positions is 4,453 people under the 2017 fiscal year appropriations act. “We believe this level is adequate to achieve National Weather Service core functions,” the official said. I would've recommended starting with this quote, then, if that's the point you were trying to make. But still, "adequate to achieve core functions" isn't the same as "just fine".