5 ms·

I concur on the quality of the article, but I would say it goes further: The Miami Herald is even suing to get public records requests filled in the interest of

by Shank 8y ago

I concur on the quality of the article, but I would say it goes further: The Miami Herald is even suing to get public records requests filled in the interest of journalism. They’re doing an exceedingly good job at trying to get answers to tough questions.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
I am ignorant as to this whole story, but out of interest, why is it a bad thing to wait for the NTSB report? Often it is good to wait for an entire report to nail down the facts before the witch hunt should begin, is there something in this case that means this isn't the best idea?
- danso 8y ago
  I imagine the Herald doesn't believe that the NTSB (or any authority) necessarily has the canonical and final word on things, and thus the Herald sees itself as providing an independent viewpoint/assessment. One of the undercurrent themes of this story is that, according to the herald, the construction company and FIU officials are well-connected politically. Possibly related to this is the fact that the Herald is suing the state for records related to the bridge [0]. These records were determined to be public but have so far been withheld from public release. [0] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article212489364.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article212489364.html
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    So the prevailing thought is that the NTSB is delaying the documents to protect FIU officials, and not to prevent undue influence of the public before the release of the report? It certainly doesn't look good from this quoted paragraph... "Public records made and received by the Department from February 20 until the bridge collapsed on March 15 obviously were not obtained by the Department during an investigation because there had been no accident, much less an investigation into an accident,'' he wrote in a response to the FDOT motion to dismiss the lawsuit. "Florida law is clear that if an agency’s record is a public record at the time it is made or received, then that document does not lose its character as a public record if the document is later given to an investigative agency in the course of a subsequently initiated investigation." Still could be to prevent a public outcry before the facts are in, but that does seem mighty fishy...
    - ajdlinux 8y ago
      > So the prevailing thought is that the NTSB is delaying the documents to protect FIU officials, and not to prevent undue influence of the public before the release of the report? I'd suggest that it's not an issue of bad faith regarding the NTSB, but rather that the NTSB doesn't (and shouldn't!) care about the political fallout from this, whereas a newspaper very much has an interest in uncovering the political side of this.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Plus, splashy articles now get more reads than articles written when the official investigation is complete and everyone is reporting it. And speculation now makes all the readers feel like insiders.
- vidanay 8y ago
  I would say primarily because the "public" has a very short memory, and an answer published 24 months from now will barely be a page 3 comment.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The phrase "witch hunt" implies that society intends to persecute some low-status unfortunates on false pretexts. The politically-connected administration of some rich school built a giant bridge and within a week it fell down and killed some people. Investigating this incident is as far from the meaning of "witch hunt" as we might imagine.
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    I was using the term to imply someone (or some thing in the case of a company) being labelled as the villain without the evidence conclusively proving they are guilty of the crimes they are accused of.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Do you doubt that the bridge collapsed? Or do you expect that someone besides the engineer or builder will be blamed for the collapse?
      - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
        You've already named two potential companies that could be attributed unfair amounts of blame. Beyond them, there are a large number of potential officials that could have leaned on / been leaned on or through nepotism or laziness been a part (or not part) of the planning, design, implementation etc of the bridge that are partly or largely responsible for design/funding choices to this bridge. There are countless examples of people receiving undue flak before being conclusively proven as guilt free, it is often prudent to wait before leveling accusations - that is what the NTSB does in it's processes - often to a fault. I think it is unnecessary snark to ask me if the bridge collapsed, please don't be crude.
- Shank 8y ago
  Personally, I don’t think that waiting for the NTSB determination is a bad thing. However, I do believe there’s a problem with suppression of public record so that, in effect, a single agency can control the statement that comes out. To be clear, I fully trust the NTSB. It’s more that I want to make sure that there are checks and balances — even when a just agency is doing the reporting. It adds another protection layer to the system.
- steve_g 8y ago
  The families of the people that were killed want to understand what happened. Delays and silence will make their suffering worse. People are often very forgiving when they know what actually happened. But being shut out of the information flow is a problem. I'm not saying we need to find the guilty and punish them, but there are people that have a real stake in finding out the story.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    TWA 800.
tialaramex 8y ago
There already exists an entity with the actual purpose of getting answers to those tough questions, which is in fact already doing so, the NTSB. The Miami Herald is suing to get more material so that it can run more speculative headlines, which doubtless is great for the Miami Herald, because it drives revenue from selling papers and from advertising. But unlike the NTSB the Miami Herald has no real interest in the prevention of future harm. Accident investigators like the NTSB need legal protection so that they get honest answers, in the service of the prevention of future harm. The harder you make it for them to do that job, the less effective they are. There's often a fantasy in play in which people suppose that surely if everything was out in the open we'd fix all these problems, wouldn't we? But we've actually run that experiment already and the results were not good. Without the methodical independent investigation big vested interests are able to direct the narrative as they choose. And their interest isn't preventing future harm... except to themselves. So nothing improves, you will read the same stories, and be pointed at the same scapegoats, forever. The specific focus on _preventing future harm_ is what's important about accident investigators. You might think a court seems like the right place, but courts are about _justice_ which isn't interested in future harm at all. Here's a nice modern British example that shows this difference: A young woman drunkenly leans against a train as it departs, to the horror of those inside the train she falls and is killed. The accident investigators look at that and their concern is: How should we prevent similar things happening? They look at lots of evidence as to exactly what happened and when, they interview people, they review the technology in place, and they make recommendations for how we can prevent the same tragedy re-occurring. The court says: The train guard has a legal responsibility towards passengers, the evidence shows he did not do everything by the book, and a passenger died. If you have a legal responsibility but you don't do things by the book and someone dies, that's manslaughter. Guilty. Prison.
- steve_g 8y ago
  "Just Culture" by Sidney Dekker is a book about balance between fairness/justice and learning how to prevent incidents in the future. He doesn't have a lot of good things to say about the court system. https://www.amazon.com/Just-Culture-Balancing-Safety-Accountability/dp/0754672670 https://www.amazon.com/Just-Culture-Balancing-Safety-Account...

by Shank 8y ago

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago

I am ignorant as to this whole story, but out of interest, why is it a bad thing to wait for the NTSB report? Often it is good to wait for an entire report to nail down the facts before the witch hunt should begin, is there something in this case that means this isn't the best idea?

danso 8y ago
I imagine the Herald doesn't believe that the NTSB (or any authority) necessarily has the canonical and final word on things, and thus the Herald sees itself as providing an independent viewpoint/assessment. One of the undercurrent themes of this story is that, according to the herald, the construction company and FIU officials are well-connected politically. Possibly related to this is the fact that the Herald is suing the state for records related to the bridge [0]. These records were determined to be public but have so far been withheld from public release. [0] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article212489364.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article212489364.html
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  So the prevailing thought is that the NTSB is delaying the documents to protect FIU officials, and not to prevent undue influence of the public before the release of the report? It certainly doesn't look good from this quoted paragraph... "Public records made and received by the Department from February 20 until the bridge collapsed on March 15 obviously were not obtained by the Department during an investigation because there had been no accident, much less an investigation into an accident,'' he wrote in a response to the FDOT motion to dismiss the lawsuit. "Florida law is clear that if an agency’s record is a public record at the time it is made or received, then that document does not lose its character as a public record if the document is later given to an investigative agency in the course of a subsequently initiated investigation." Still could be to prevent a public outcry before the facts are in, but that does seem mighty fishy...
  - ajdlinux 8y ago
    > So the prevailing thought is that the NTSB is delaying the documents to protect FIU officials, and not to prevent undue influence of the public before the release of the report? I'd suggest that it's not an issue of bad faith regarding the NTSB, but rather that the NTSB doesn't (and shouldn't!) care about the political fallout from this, whereas a newspaper very much has an interest in uncovering the political side of this.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Plus, splashy articles now get more reads than articles written when the official investigation is complete and everyone is reporting it. And speculation now makes all the readers feel like insiders.
vidanay 8y ago
I would say primarily because the "public" has a very short memory, and an answer published 24 months from now will barely be a page 3 comment.
jessaustin 8y ago
The phrase "witch hunt" implies that society intends to persecute some low-status unfortunates on false pretexts. The politically-connected administration of some rich school built a giant bridge and within a week it fell down and killed some people. Investigating this incident is as far from the meaning of "witch hunt" as we might imagine.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  I was using the term to imply someone (or some thing in the case of a company) being labelled as the villain without the evidence conclusively proving they are guilty of the crimes they are accused of.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Do you doubt that the bridge collapsed? Or do you expect that someone besides the engineer or builder will be blamed for the collapse?
    - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
      You've already named two potential companies that could be attributed unfair amounts of blame. Beyond them, there are a large number of potential officials that could have leaned on / been leaned on or through nepotism or laziness been a part (or not part) of the planning, design, implementation etc of the bridge that are partly or largely responsible for design/funding choices to this bridge. There are countless examples of people receiving undue flak before being conclusively proven as guilt free, it is often prudent to wait before leveling accusations - that is what the NTSB does in it's processes - often to a fault. I think it is unnecessary snark to ask me if the bridge collapsed, please don't be crude.
Shank 8y ago
Personally, I don’t think that waiting for the NTSB determination is a bad thing. However, I do believe there’s a problem with suppression of public record so that, in effect, a single agency can control the statement that comes out. To be clear, I fully trust the NTSB. It’s more that I want to make sure that there are checks and balances — even when a just agency is doing the reporting. It adds another protection layer to the system.
steve_g 8y ago
The families of the people that were killed want to understand what happened. Delays and silence will make their suffering worse. People are often very forgiving when they know what actually happened. But being shut out of the information flow is a problem. I'm not saying we need to find the guilty and punish them, but there are people that have a real stake in finding out the story.
- mcguire 8y ago
  TWA 800.

tialaramex 8y ago

There already exists an entity with the actual purpose of getting answers to those tough questions, which is in fact already doing so, the NTSB. The Miami Herald is suing to get more material so that it can run more speculative headlines, which doubtless is great for the Miami Herald, because it drives revenue from selling papers and from advertising. But unlike the NTSB the Miami Herald has no real interest in the prevention of future harm. Accident investigators like the NTSB need legal protection so that they get honest answers, in the service of the prevention of future harm. The harder you make it for them to do that job, the less effective they are. There's often a fantasy in play in which people suppose that surely if everything was out in the open we'd fix all these problems, wouldn't we? But we've actually run that experiment already and the results were not good. Without the methodical independent investigation big vested interests are able to direct the narrative as they choose. And their interest isn't preventing future harm... except to themselves. So nothing improves, you will read the same stories, and be pointed at the same scapegoats, forever. The specific focus on _preventing future harm_ is what's important about accident investigators. You might think a court seems like the right place, but courts are about _justice_ which isn't interested in future harm at all. Here's a nice modern British example that shows this difference: A young woman drunkenly leans against a train as it departs, to the horror of those inside the train she falls and is killed. The accident investigators look at that and their concern is: How should we prevent similar things happening? They look at lots of evidence as to exactly what happened and when, they interview people, they review the technology in place, and they make recommendations for how we can prevent the same tragedy re-occurring. The court says: The train guard has a legal responsibility towards passengers, the evidence shows he did not do everything by the book, and a passenger died. If you have a legal responsibility but you don't do things by the book and someone dies, that's manslaughter. Guilty. Prison.

steve_g 8y ago
"Just Culture" by Sidney Dekker is a book about balance between fairness/justice and learning how to prevent incidents in the future. He doesn't have a lot of good things to say about the court system. https://www.amazon.com/Just-Culture-Balancing-Safety-Accountability/dp/0754672670 https://www.amazon.com/Just-Culture-Balancing-Safety-Account...