4 ms·

> Let's try to get more information. The irony of this part. We need to hold leaders accountable, and we need to make good decisions. They are actively underm

by titzer 6y ago

> Let's try to get more information. The irony of this part. We need to hold leaders accountable, and we need to make good decisions. They are actively undermining that ability by censoring data and trying to cover their asses. The rest of your comment trots out a truckload of red herrings about information we might not want to look at right now, or some disgruntled or misguided person not following proper channels and rushing to get out crap information about drugs or something. These things could not be less related to what we are talking about here. FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. I mean, does that not strike you as something she should absolutely blow the whistle on?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Absolutely she should blow the whistle. Then the journalists should ask followup questions like "which specific changes were you ordered to make", so they can dig in and confirm whether those changes would be dishonest. A story with little context and no details is useless; the state will soon announce something along the lines of "nuh-uh she's a liar", and then how's anyone supposed to decide who's right except by applying preconceived biases?
jariel 6y ago
"FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. " I think you are misreading my point and definitely misunderstanding the nature of the person's job. We don't know what happened and 'censored' can mean a lot of things. My quotes are not 'red herrings' - they are examples of what is happening right now. The Miami Herald is upset that Flordia would not publish the names of retirement homes? What if this is literally the issue in question? What if this 'whistleblower' wanted to publish said names, but the Gov. didn't want her to? Is this worthy of whistle-blowing? I don't think so. What if she wanted to make a graph where the landing page highlighted 'total new cases' (which looks bad because it's always rising) but the state wants 'daily new cases' (which looks better because it's ostensibly flat. Is that censorship? And by the way - disgruntled people are fired all the time. What we need is more information, and it's odd that the state employee did not actually give more specifics, it would validate the cause a little better. Finally - it's not her job to decide what goes out and whatnot. Definitely not, that's a fairly high-level decision. Her job is to communicate and coordinate it effectively. But again, using my example the decision as to 'do we name the long term care homes or not?' is definitely above her pay grade. That's a communications job it will touch the highest levels. So again - we need more information in order to determine the severity of what happened here. Maybe there is fraud rising to criminality, in which case I hope someone goes to jail, but it may not be that.
- titzer 6y ago
  On the one hand you say we need more information, but the bulk of your comment is pure speculation and distraction. You already made a conclusion about her claims and it's obvious from the giant cloud of doubt you are trying to create. That's an unhealthy skepticism at best and bad faith incredulism at worst. Both are chilling effects for holding leaders accountable. I also think you don't understand what a red herring [1] is. Stop distracting with irrelevant anecdotes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

by titzer 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Absolutely she should blow the whistle. Then the journalists should ask followup questions like "which specific changes were you ordered to make", so they can dig in and confirm whether those changes would be dishonest. A story with little context and no details is useless; the state will soon announce something along the lines of "nuh-uh she's a liar", and then how's anyone supposed to decide who's right except by applying preconceived biases?

jariel 6y ago

"FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. " I think you are misreading my point and definitely misunderstanding the nature of the person's job. We don't know what happened and 'censored' can mean a lot of things. My quotes are not 'red herrings' - they are examples of what is happening right now. The Miami Herald is upset that Flordia would not publish the names of retirement homes? What if this is literally the issue in question? What if this 'whistleblower' wanted to publish said names, but the Gov. didn't want her to? Is this worthy of whistle-blowing? I don't think so. What if she wanted to make a graph where the landing page highlighted 'total new cases' (which looks bad because it's always rising) but the state wants 'daily new cases' (which looks better because it's ostensibly flat. Is that censorship? And by the way - disgruntled people are fired all the time. What we need is more information, and it's odd that the state employee did not actually give more specifics, it would validate the cause a little better. Finally - it's not her job to decide what goes out and whatnot. Definitely not, that's a fairly high-level decision. Her job is to communicate and coordinate it effectively. But again, using my example the decision as to 'do we name the long term care homes or not?' is definitely above her pay grade. That's a communications job it will touch the highest levels. So again - we need more information in order to determine the severity of what happened here. Maybe there is fraud rising to criminality, in which case I hope someone goes to jail, but it may not be that.

titzer 6y ago
On the one hand you say we need more information, but the bulk of your comment is pure speculation and distraction. You already made a conclusion about her claims and it's obvious from the giant cloud of doubt you are trying to create. That's an unhealthy skepticism at best and bad faith incredulism at worst. Both are chilling effects for holding leaders accountable. I also think you don't understand what a red herring [1] is. Stop distracting with irrelevant anecdotes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring