3 ms·

This wasn’t targeting people the governor didn’t like, this was a direct attempt to punish publication of a story that showed him in a bad light. The intent wa

This wasn’t targeting people the governor didn’t like, this was a direct attempt to punish publication of a story that showed him in a bad light. The intent was the chilling effect and the governor got what he wanted. The reporter, subject matter expert & newspaper all had to be involved in a criminal investigation and incur all the costs that go with it. This was a direct attack on a free press using the full menace of the state and there are unlikely to be an repercussions for it. Quite the opposite there are members of his constituency that believe that the press are enemies and deserve this treatment.

duxup 5y ago
"people he doesn't like" I use the idea of that generally in a way that IMO fits your description as well. Reporter, newspaper, another politician, even an institution, any could fall into that category IMO. While I don't doubt the seriousness of his actions regarding attacking / threatening the press, I think for guys like him he would be happy to target anyone / think that kept him in power.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  I see it as another example of a basic clash of cultures - between someone who is competence-oriented, and someone who is status-and-hierarchy oriented. They're speaking different languages and seeing different things. Parsons - like many politicians - sees situations exclusively as status and power plays. So when someone with low status says "This is broken", of course he goes on the attack. It's inconceivable in his world that someone might be trying to warn him about a real problem that needs to be fixed. At best he sees it as an attack on his position, at worst he turns it into a mini-campaign he can use for political gain. The fact there was a real problem is irrelevant and invisible to him. It's simply not something that interests him.
  - duxup 5y ago
    That's an interesting idea, thank you. I always wonder what it was that (I don't want to get into politics in detail here) that made Trump respond almost allergically to the news about COVID early on in 2020. There's nothing about him or his general 'platform' that meant he had to reject any news about it at all outright and dig in his heels until it was too late. He could have even fed his own authoritarian inclination and declared his own great patriotic war on COVID / made it all about him in a way. Had he done so I wonder if he still would be president ... But he made his call. Was it because he wanted to just reject any 'bad news' or maybe it was more like you're describing? Whatever it was, he perhaps saw it as a status / power play on him in one way or another. I really don't know but it is an interesting explanation for people's responses at times.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    >Parsons - like many politicians - sees situations exclusively as status and power plays. So when someone with low status says "This is broken", of course he goes on the attack. These are the absolute last people we should ever want in charge of anything

duxup 5y ago

"people he doesn't like" I use the idea of that generally in a way that IMO fits your description as well. Reporter, newspaper, another politician, even an institution, any could fall into that category IMO. While I don't doubt the seriousness of his actions regarding attacking / threatening the press, I think for guys like him he would be happy to target anyone / think that kept him in power.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
I see it as another example of a basic clash of cultures - between someone who is competence-oriented, and someone who is status-and-hierarchy oriented. They're speaking different languages and seeing different things. Parsons - like many politicians - sees situations exclusively as status and power plays. So when someone with low status says "This is broken", of course he goes on the attack. It's inconceivable in his world that someone might be trying to warn him about a real problem that needs to be fixed. At best he sees it as an attack on his position, at worst he turns it into a mini-campaign he can use for political gain. The fact there was a real problem is irrelevant and invisible to him. It's simply not something that interests him.
- duxup 5y ago
  That's an interesting idea, thank you. I always wonder what it was that (I don't want to get into politics in detail here) that made Trump respond almost allergically to the news about COVID early on in 2020. There's nothing about him or his general 'platform' that meant he had to reject any news about it at all outright and dig in his heels until it was too late. He could have even fed his own authoritarian inclination and declared his own great patriotic war on COVID / made it all about him in a way. Had he done so I wonder if he still would be president ... But he made his call. Was it because he wanted to just reject any 'bad news' or maybe it was more like you're describing? Whatever it was, he perhaps saw it as a status / power play on him in one way or another. I really don't know but it is an interesting explanation for people's responses at times.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  >Parsons - like many politicians - sees situations exclusively as status and power plays. So when someone with low status says "This is broken", of course he goes on the attack. These are the absolute last people we should ever want in charge of anything