3 ms·
Yes, if you read the letter ignoring the context of the direct quotations in the news article then it's not evidence of bad faith on the part of the govorner. W
by Traster 6y ago
Yes, if you read the letter ignoring the context of the direct quotations in the news article then it's not evidence of bad faith on the part of the govorner. What's evidence of bad faith by the governer is the fact that she has told the news organisation:
>Rebekah Jones said in an email to CBS12 News that her removal was "not voluntary" and that she was removed from her position because she was ordered to censor some data, but refused to "manually change data to drum up support for the plan to reopen."
But now that you know what she's said to the news reporters, you can see that the context of this email is trying to inform people that the data isn't trustworthy without directly accusing anyone of wrongdoing that may lead to her being fired.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe context of the direct quotations is context that she created. If her perception of the situation is inaccurate, that context will also be inaccurate.
- kthejoker2 6y agoThe only facts we know are she was involuntarily removed. The good faith assumptions are: * She was removed for reasons unrelated to manipulating data. * She was not asked to manipulate data. * No data will be manipulated. Surely the people in charge of removing her and identifying her replacement can verify those assumptions?