"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 t

"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.