Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship United States

Highway Safety Agency Silences Engineers 284

Posted by samzenpus from the let-me-do-the-talking dept.
nbauman writes "Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters, according to the New York Times. If the officials want to say anything it has to be off the record. The only one they can quote is Nason herself. However, she refused to be interviewed about the no-attribution policy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Highway Safety Agency Silences Engineers More

Highway Safety Agency Silences Engineers

Comments Filter:

  • Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:36PM (#20335291) Homepage Journal
    Any government or office within the government (intelligence and other appropriately sensitive agencies aside) who are proud of their work should be encouraged and willing to discuss openly with the people who give them the authority and resources to do their jobs.

    This whole issue of lack of transparency is becoming a larger and larger problem with the government and again.... if we are not careful will result into a slide into fascism. Transparency of government is one of the bedrocks of a democracy, hell, even a republic. The current Whitehouse administration has dramatically accelerated this move towards fascism and again, I have to quote Milton Mayer's book They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1939-1945 where an anonymous professor said "What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. "

    This sort of thing is a classic fascist move where *free* representatives from government are not allowed to speak to a *free* press. Granted, if you are in the uniformed services or currently employed by a federal office engaged in sensitive work (one of the dozen or so intelligence agencies), then this sort of censorship is acceptable. However, this administration has censored publicly funded scientists engaged in research that potentially impacts upon political policy of the current administration and now National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration officials from talking? One has to wonder just what it is that Bush and Co. want to keep from the American people. What is NHTSA hiding from us?

    What moves like this do is open the possibility of lack of oversight when it comes to issues of bribes, coercion and worse. Imagine if a powerful automotive manufacturer were to have a fundamental safety problem with one of their automobiles. Without access by the public and the free press whose job it is to ask the hard questions, we open ourselves up to abuse, manipulation and more unpleasantness than you may imagine.

    People need to become more involved in politics, get rid of your disillusionment of representative government and make a difference. Don't be sheep and become satisfied with the current state if you are not happy with it and help, but don't be stupid about it. Work within the system because with the current administration, they will view any extreme political moves as a justification for expanding their controls even further over the populace. Demand more of our politicians. Expect transparency, honesty and be more willing to support impeachment of those officials who do not represent the will of those who elected them. Look beyond single issues in those candidates whom you vote for. Don't be seduced by claims of piety or religious devotion as one mans beliefs are another's anathema. I am not saying that religion is bad as I possess strong spiritual beliefs, but be wary of those who wear religion on their sleeves. And do not accept as this NHTSA official maintains that the only way to say anything is if it is off the record. Ms. Nason, you are a government employee working for an office whose role is to protect the American citizen, save lives and prevent injury. You are not entitled to any special protection under the Constitution than the rest of us and you ultimately answer to the American people, not a transient senior government official intent on building a political legacy. Shame on you for gagging the scientists under your watch whose duty it is to serve the American people and report to them on issues related to safety and well being on the roads and highways.

    • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fbartho ( 840012 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:48PM (#20335447) Homepage
      I think you missed the point of this move. This move does not prohibit employees from talking with the press, what it explicitly enforces is that the only official voice of the organization is its head. I fail to see how this is a lack of transparency, because anything employees say can still meet the press. Any allegations of bribery etc, can still get to the press. This just means that a random engineer can't claim to represent the whole organization. This seems like a very sensible policy to have in place. Many organizations have to have their lawyers present whenever anyone gets interviewed or have a pre-interview with the lawyers where they delineate what things the engineers are allowed to comment on and what they are not. With a blanket ban on this, there is no misunderstanding, the press knows that no employees can be considered to represent the organization without explicit clear approval. On a case by case basis, the head could allow specific people to meet on the record for specific purposes.

      If I'm wrong or missing something please let me know.

      • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:55PM (#20335547)

        This just means that a random engineer can't claim to represent the whole organization.

        Neither can an official spokesman, unless he surveys every member of the organization and confirms that each agrees with the statement.

        An official spokesperson typically only speaks for the executives. To act otherwise is to give legs to the lie that corporations are persons.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cycle003 ( 980723 )
        You're partially right that the "official voice" should be a sanctioned message, but a blanket ban on all underlings being quoted is a bit fascist.

        I work for the federal government, and reporters conduct interviews with our staff quite often. These interviews are usually arranged through a public affairs official, and I'm sure someone saying something not inline with the "official voice" would face reprimand.

        However, we can also expect (in most cases) whistle-blower protection if we report improp

      • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Informative)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:12PM (#20335745)
        If I'm wrong or missing something please let me know.

        "Speaking on background" doesn't mean that the employee can be quoted without named attribution, it means that the employee can't be quoted period. In the journalism game, background means that the source proivdes information, but that what the source actually said cannot be repeated through quotes. Thus, the reporter has to paraphrase the content to be used, and anybody who disagrees with the source or the paraphrased information has far greater room to maneuver, because the published information effectively becomes hearsay.

        • Irony (Score:4, Interesting)

          by tcgroat ( 666085 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:34PM (#20339703)

          On one hand the government insists reporters name their anonymous sources. Refusal to answer is contempt of court.

          On the other hand, the reporter is forbidden to name their source if that person is employed by the NHTSA.

          That sort of dilemna seems destined to trigger a long series of court challenges and appeals. This regulation is one that only a lawyer would impose. Wait, Ms. Nason's background and qualifications are... Oh, never mind!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jfengel ( 409917 )
        There is one small thing you're missing. Since they can't be quoted, it makes the story harder to publish. If an accusation is important, an editor won't allow the story without an attribution, and with good reason. A story with unnamed sources is weak, because it lacks accountability.

        It's not totally shutting people up, but it slows things down a lot. An engineer can speak to the press and then the journalist can try to get official, on-the-record confirmation. It doesn't let the administrator absolut
      • I think you're somewhat correct that the agency has a right to say who its spokesperson is, but I think what you're missing is that this suppresses the credibility of statements made by professionals. As a reader, I would certainly give more weight to a statement about, say, bridge safety in an article which quotes an NHTSA engineer than one which quotes "anonymous sources."

        There are far too many people on the internet spouting all sorts of opinions on subjects which they may not even have any education or

      • I think you are missing something ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by golodh ( 893453 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @07:10PM (#20337289)
        @fbartho

        I do think you are missing a point, and an important one.

        There are many shades of "being allowed to speak to the public" when it comes to organisations.

        If the only thing Miss. Nason was interested in was ensuring, in good faith, that individuals don't hijack the authority of the organisation, then it would have been sufficient, even appropriate, to insist that only the PR office could speak "for the organisation", and that everyone one else could only speak "on a personal title".

        Instead she went a step further. She not just centralised the authority to speak for the organisation, but also forbade individuals to speak out on a personal title. They have to be anonymous. The point is that the expertise in the NHTSA about technical matters is with the engineers, not with management. And unless you wanted to know about NHTSA policies, why would you want to speak to anyone but an engineer?

        In fact, the article quotes the former head of the NHTSA:

        "My God," said Joan Claybrook, who was N.H.T.S.A. administrator from 1977 to 1981 and is now president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Given that N.H.T.S.A. is the leading source of automotive safety information in the United States, its researchers are public officials and people are entitled to "know what information they have, whether it is on paper or in their heads," Ms. Claybrook said.

        This seems a much more reasonable stance: we, the public, pay for the NHTSA, and so we should have some way of knowing what their findings are. And it should be up to *us* to decide if we want to hear the opinion of NHTSA management or its engineers.

        Unfortunately it seems typical of a certain philosophy on government to restrict access to potentially unfavourable news as in:

        "Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.".

        *coughs* "We" were finding a lot of stuff "did not have to be on record". Sorry, but who are you to decide that? It just sounds like a flimsy pretext for spin-doctoring to me, coupled to a corporate philosophy of information-control.

        There are many thing that a corporate mindset is more efficient at than a civil-servant mentality, but honesty and transparency aren't among them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by love-blood-rhetoric ( 880992 )
      Whether sadly or not, I can easily see the justification for this gag order. I am an engineer and the insults to design that I see within my field do nothing but reinforce my view that most others in this field are incompetent. Imagine this from a management's point of view:

      1) You, being a state agency, have hired somewhere between the worst and mediocre engineers. (My apologies to the few exceptions to this rule).

      2) They have performed work that you, personally, are not able to check.

      3) Thes
    • What is NHTSA hiding from us?

      Who knows, but my guess would be the truth about car accidents. I seriously doubt, this move is pure politik. I bet the bulk of it is large corporate car manufacturers. (Let's sit back, and see if the trend of recalled motor parts and assemblies sharply decline as investigators now have one more hurdle to jump in investigating a liability civil case against, say, General Motors for faulty break-lines or weak headers.)

      Also, you have emissions testing, which will have to go thr

      • Re:Shame... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:18PM (#20335815) Journal
        The reason for the gag order is that the country is in dire straits. The national infrastructure is falling apart, and there are no resources to fix them.

        The more people in the public realize this, the faster foreign investment will flee the scene, the less likelihood there will be that the resources might materialize in the future.

        Bureaucrats and politicians don't keep secrets when things are going well, they shout from the rooftops.

        They also don't waste time enforcing secrecy when things aren't going badly, because it generates no return.

        They enforce secrecy when things are absolutely fucked, and they wish to prevent a panic.

        At this point, things have become desparate enough, and the US has become unpopular enough, that the only way they can survive is to engage in colonialism and exploit foreigners through force of arms, which is the one area where they are still doing well.

        Sorry to burst anyones bubble.

        • They enforce secrecy when things are absolutely fucked, and they wish to prevent a panic.
          Almost, but not quite. They enforce secrecy when they want to cover up their own incompetence and malfeasance. Panic is their friend, because it makes us willing to give up even more of our rights - including the right to transparent and accountable government - and it opens up the federal treasury to even more looting on behalf of their friends and political patrons.
        • It is not a gag order, it is saying they don't speak in an official capacity.

          If engineers no something is dangerous, nothing prevents them to go to the press.

          Want to be paranoid? annonymously suggest to a member of the media to get copise of documents. That are all publicly available.

          • It is not a gag order, it is saying they don't speak in an official capacity.

            Ok, then where do you get the official information about the condition of the infrastructure? Because there is now apparently only one official source, and she refuses to speak.
      • ...I'm thinking more along the lines of the sad state of our infrastructure. All that money shoveled over to H'burton could have been used to fix bridges. May or may not be true, but I'm sure given the recent bridge failure, that it is first on their minds...

    • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Samalie ( 1016193 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:06PM (#20335669)
      I used to be involved in civic government as an elected official. Within days of being elected I was forbidden to speak to the press as the official voice of City Council was the Mayor.

      Of course, in my instance, I told them to shut the fuck up and if they even remotely thought that I was going to never speak to the media they may as well go fuck themselves, because I'll talk to whomever I goddamn want.

      There were of course certain things that legally I could not discuss, which was a different matter....but they learnt quickly that I wasn't going to sit back & let myself be fucked on the council table under some self-righteous gag order.

      This to me is really no better....government NEEDS to be as transparent as possible, or otherwise, bottom line, its the citizens that get fucked. This gag order for the NHTSA is no better than what the rest of council tried to do to me - and if I was employed by the NHTSA I would gladly put my opinions of right and wrong over my job, and tell them to go fuck themselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jaeph ( 710098 )
      There are rich, influential people out there who are working to gather more and more power to the nanny state, and the masses help them by expecting the nanny state to cater to their little whims. It doesn't matter the specifics - some people think the federal govt should protect people from hurricanes, others want the fed to help with education, others want support for their particular race/creed/way-of-life. Each one may in fact have a reasonable case when looked at in isolation, but the overall effect

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 )
      No, i disagree. The problem with public employees talking is that most dont truly understand what is ok to talk about and what isn't, or even if they have the complete story or not. ( often they THINK they do, but really dont and only cause confusion by speaking )

      Its a lot like a corporate person making statements about their company. It really is a bad idea and justa asking for trouble.

      Having a central point of contact for communication is a good ting, it keeps information correct and safely dispersed.

    • Re:Shame... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by schnell ( 163007 ) <me AT schnell DOT net> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:45PM (#20336217) Homepage

      This sort of thing is a classic fascist move where *free* representatives from government are not allowed to speak to a *free* press.

      Look, I'm all for open access to the press (speaking as a former reporter). However, I have to confess that in this case it's not fascism, it's just sensible public relations. I don't think it's about muzzling whisteblowers, it's about making sure people talking to the press are trained to pick their words carefully in a situation where public hysteria or calmness is at stake.

      If you allow any random employee from within the organization - who probably hasn't had media training - to be quoted by reporters, then serious bad PR or misinformation can result. I think what's driving this in particular is a desire not to have Joe Engineer who's used to talking with other engineers give raw quotes to a clueless reporter and have his words completely misunderstood and thereby throw the public into a tizzy.

      A fanciful but illustrative example: Joe Engineer from NHTSA may talk to the New York Times and use some intra-agency jargon like "in our latest survey, 99% of the bridges in the country got a designation of 'likely to collapse'." It turns out that 'likely to collapse' is an agency term measuring whether it is more likely to collapse or be struck by a meteor, but the reporter (who doesn't know any better, and wouldn't be expected to know better unless Joe explains it to him - and we've never heard before of a technical person who fails to explain their jargon) puts in the paper verbatim: "NHTSA says 99% of bridges likely to collapse." (Cue mass hysteria.) Executives and other people in the organization who are given media training are at least taught how to choose their words for public consumption carefully (whether they do it properly or not is a different issue).

      So, as much as I enjoy getting into a tizzy about censorship, I gotta say there isn't much here to get worked up about, let alone decry as government "fascism." The TSA and airport security procedures, though ... don't get me started about those guys.

      • WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:53PM (#20339823)
        P.R. === Public Relations == Propaganda
        The term was coined by a propagandist because "Propaganda" sounds bad, especially after a world war. Naturally, one would expect a propagandist to leverage their expertise on their own profession and they have.

        Controlling the message from public experts so it can be "fixed" by propagandists may not in and of itself be fascist but its certainly a characteristic of commonly known fascist governments. It is actually an essential part of authoritarian government and not of fascism.

        American media already acts in similar ways to authoritarian systems and no killings or torcher are required. Its not as easy as knowing most official 'news' is lies like Iranian radio, its more a advanced next generation. Social Engineering.

        politicalcompass.org is required reading for anybody who wants to refer fascism

    • Re:Shame... - Secrecy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by COredneck ( 598733 ) *
      The same thing was done with the Real ID Act. I tried to ask some questions on why include the Driver License Agreement [wikipedia.org] which would put traffic tickets and driver records on a North American "Ledger" where records can be accessed ranging from Nunavut all the way down to Cancun and farther. When I contacted the House Judiciary which was chaired by Francis James Sensenbrenner, Jr, I was told in no uncertain terms that it was none of my g------d business. Seems like the sunshine laws from the 1960's/1970's are

  • yeah (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ArcadeX ( 866171 )
    because 'off the record' is soo respected by reporters anyway. I don't even want to read TFA to see what spawned this blunder.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by winkydink ( 650484 ) *
      It is if they ever want to use you as a source again.
    • "Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters" said Johnny Slidrule, chief engineer for the NHTSA... more to follow in our in depth interview.

  • I completely agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:40PM (#20335349) Homepage Journal

    This is to save taxpayer money. After all, if engineers were to let slip how bad our crumbling infrastructure has gotten, we might actually have to fix it, and that's very expensive. And you don't want your taxes raised, do you?

    Of course not.

    </sarcasm>

  • but you're going to have to speak to a slashdot admin about what i was going to say. what, they don't know what i was going to say? well, shucks, i'm sorry for you not knowing what my thoughts are. what, you think slashdot readers should have a right to read any old comment they want? next you'll be telling me it is the job of us government personnel in non-security sensistive positions to communicate with the people who pay their wages. what nonsense!

  • Rather than "censorship"... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Protoslo ( 752870 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:44PM (#20335405)
    She's probably worried that someone will say the word "bridge."

  • What are they trying to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ks*nut ( 985334 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:44PM (#20335407)
    Many portions of the U.S. infrastructure are crumbling away in front of our eyes. To silence those who could help the less technically inclined understand some of the details of what is going on reflects the worst kind of censorship. The public deserves to know why we our lives are being placed at risk in spite of being one of the world's "superpowers."

    Full and open disclosure, along with rational discussion about the best way to put our country back on track, is what we need. Unless they are trying to protect some awful secret...

  • Not Sure I Disagree With This Completely (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigAssRat ( 724675 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:46PM (#20335419)
    We all know how the press can get stories wrong, especially technical ones. I am not 100% sure that this isn't a good idea. The press can misquote or take out of context just about anything, so when an engineer says something techincal but is misquoted about how bad things really are it just causes an uproar. No, I haven't RTFA yet, about to, but wanted to get my knee jerk reaction before I do...will post later if my thoughts change after RTFA.

    • Re:Not Sure I Disagree With This Completely (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rostin ( 691447 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:15PM (#20335777)
      Thank you for being the first commenter not to see this as some kind of fascist conspiracy.

      This type of control is the rule rather than the exception in companies. Part of the purpose is to contain trade secrets and to protect the reputation of the company, but it's also to prevent the spread of false information. Engineers and scientists aren't infallible. (What's worse, most of us think we know more than we really do, love it when people ask us our opinions, and aren't slow to speculate.) Even when we're right, we might exaggerate or use technical jargon, as you pointed out. A system has to exist to make sure that technically vetted, relevant information is provided to the public.

      If this is some kind of cover-up, it's a pretty crappy one. As the summary says, engineers are still permitted to speak "off the record," so it's not like the flow the information has been completely stopped. Also, there are whistleblower laws.

      • Re:Not Sure I Disagree With This Completely (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @08:20PM (#20338049) Journal

        This type of control is the rule rather than the exception in companies. Part of the purpose is to contain trade secrets and to protect the reputation of the company, but it's also to prevent the spread of false information.
        News Flash: The Federal Government and its Agencies are not companies.
        "This type of control" is not the rule for a public agency

        A system has to exist to make sure that technically vetted, relevant information is provided to the public.
        You mean... like a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

        That's pretty much what they do, hire people tto provide "technically vetted, relevant information" and to set policy.
  • A new source for government conspiracy theories...

    • Re:Cool... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Eudial ( 590661 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:17PM (#20335793)

      A new source for government conspiracy theories...


      Ah yes, the Highway Safety Agency was created by Nazi refugee scientists, and are really devoted to the resurrection of Hitler. They have been summoning aliens to earth since the 1950s, and are responsible for the Roswell crash since they sent the maps to the aliens upside-down.

      The "high ways" are not actually made for driving on, that's just what they "tell you". They are in fact a very elaborate way of communicating with the aliens. They are a in lack of better comparison, a written language. The "high ways", clearly visible from space, tell the aliens where and when to land.

      The UFOs really are Nazi escape pods returning to earth and infiltrating Washington. 19th august 2011 they will simultaneously seize control over the US, and turn it into the Fourth Reich.

  • Simple Compromise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    A reasonable compromise should be that personal opinions should be required to be prefaced with, "The following is my personal opinion only and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer". That is quite fair and simple. Maybe require the reporter to sign off on it.

  • Downside of off-the-record commentary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:49PM (#20335457)

    Having attribution for quotes makes them able to be verified. Disclosing journalistic sources doesn't quite enable the same degree of many-eyeballs as disclosing software source does, since every reader can't just call George Bush up and personally ask him if he said such-and-such, but it does at least assure that if a quote becomes a point of contention and controversy, someone will check it out. Also, if a quote is attributed to a specific individual, there's a reasonable chance of determining whether they said that. If it is just attributed to "sources close to so-and-so" there's really no way to know if someone among this unspecified group of individuals may or may not have said it. In all, "sources speaking on the condition of anonymity say..." is just journalist talk for "rumor has it that..."

  • Relevant Question (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bootle ( 816136 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:50PM (#20335469)
    Bush Appointee?

    • Propaganda and censorship? Of course it's a Bushie (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Attaturk ( 695988 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:23PM (#20335877) Homepage

      Bush Appointee?
      Let's have a look: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nicole_ R._Nason [sourcewatch.org]

      Nicole R. Nason, of Virginia, was nominated January 17, 2006, by President George W. Bush to be Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the Department of Transportation.

      At the time of her nomination, Nason was serving "as Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Governmental Affairs. Prior to this, she served as Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Congressional Affairs for the United States Customs Service. Ms. Nason also served as Communications Director and Counsel to Representative Porter J. Goss. Earlier in her career, she served as Governmental Affairs Counsel at Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Ms. Nason received her bachelor's degree from the American University and her JD from Case Western Reserve."
      Ah. Make of that what you will.

  • They're LUCKY (Score:3, Insightful)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:51PM (#20335477) Homepage
    ... we (private industry) are not allowed to talk to the press, on or off the record!

  • a bold violation of Federal law (Score:3)

    by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:51PM (#20335487) Homepage Journal
    lots of that going around lately.

    the public's business is PUBLIC, you pinhead appointees. deal with it.

  • January 20, 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 14erCleaner ( 745600 ) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:54PM (#20335537) Homepage Journal
    The day our government might start becoming transparent again. Cross your fingers...

  • Tool for Cover-ups? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by burning-toast ( 925667 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:55PM (#20335543)
    FTA:
    ---
    Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.
    ---

    This seems to me that this would make it so that the following would be easily plausible:

    1. Reporter gets bad news about something which effects the public from one of their engineers, staff members, or experts but cannot attribute their source.
    2. Reporter has to leave it as a "trusted source" causing many to doubt the validity of the claims. (Or, alternately it is never released simply because the news outlet can not attribute the source).
    3. Since Ms. Nason did not explicitly allow that exchange to take place (or for it to be attributed to the source) the facts can be denied (or at least remain unverifiable) on the grounds that the NHTSA has never "officially" released such information. Or, the Public has never even heard of it depending on how the media outlet handles the previous decision (#2).

    This only seems to me to be a method of covering up something. Is there any legitimate purpose for an organization such as this to withhold information from the public? Especially that which would come (potentially) from Engineers or other "experts" on the matters with which they are being questioned.

    - Toast

  • Well, yeah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:56PM (#20335559)
    It's the same reason companies have their marketing department tell customers about the product rather than engineers. Marketing will tell you why it's great, engineers will tell you how it could be better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Vortran ( 253538 )
      A company isn't owned by the citizens, although shareholder might be citizens.. but the revenue comes from customers.

      Government, on the other hand, IS owned by the citizens so anyone who draws a paycheck from our taxes is beholden to us in my opinion.

  • Who won ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by budword ( 680846 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @04:58PM (#20335571)
    I am increasingly unsure who won the cold war. Seems as if I live in the Soviet Republic of America. You'll need a passport to visit a national park in the near future, which is just a step to needing to show your "papers" to travel state to state. This is just the latest step on the road to our fascist future. Welcome to America Comrade. Heil Bush. (Yes I understand the commies and fascists were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they both have totalitarianism in common. We are riding down the slippery slope now, and I don't believe we will be able to stop short of a very unpleasant bottom. Best of luck to you.....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sorthum ( 123064 )
      Say what? There's a National Parks Passport, but that's not what you seem to think it is...
      • Actually it's not what you think it is, you will either a "real-id" which I don't believe any state offers, or a US State dept issued passport for identification. I would'nt be surprised if they have to let you side with a State ID and Official Birth Certificate Copy for a while because the state Dept is backed-up for 6 months for passports.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bmajik ( 96670 )
      I was going to make approximately this post just the other day on slashdot, as part of a completely different story.

      Why did we bother winning the cold war? Was it so our own government could take 100% of the credit for destroying America instead of having to share it with a nuclear armed enemy?

    • The fact you feel sure enough that you'll not be up against a wall at midnight tonight with a blindfold on for complaining should tell you plenty. Nor are we anywhere close to that point.

      Nor do we have camps of people like you chipping uranium ore by hand out of mines in Alaska.

      Try reading a little about what real fascist states do to the populace before you whine again from your luxury home on your own (read: not state) computer.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by budword ( 680846 )
        You don't get to the bottom of the slippery slope overnight. It happens a step at a time. Societies rarely take steps in the right direction without massive upheaval. But we keep taking steps in the wrong direction, and it's going to be damn hard to get back those rights once we have given them up. Franklin said that those who give up their liberty for safety deserve neither.

  • Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters

    Wouldn't it be a shame if the next time NHTSA or Nason has something they'd like to brag about, they call a press conference...

    ...and nobody shows up?

    Political big-wigs thrive off of getting press for their stupid pet projects. The press could kill her career in a heartbeat simply by

  • I work in government and I don't talk to the press (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ang31us ( 1132361 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:11PM (#20335735) Homepage
    I'm a computer nerd who happens to work for the City of New York (you might have heard of us). My agency has a communications bureau whose job it is to deal with the press. Why should I be on the hot seat in front of a bunch of blazing cameras, answering questions from interviewers who are trying to lead me down a dark path toward fanning the flames of controversy? Responding to the media is not my job and our training programs teach us to direct the press to the communications office -- that's the right thing to do. My agency has many specialized bureaus and the issue of the day that the media is interested in is likely to be in a realm in which I am not an expert...even if the issue is within my bureau, I am an expert in TECHNOLOGY and should never put myself in a position where someone is asking me questions about, say Immunology. If I am stupid enough to answer the media's questions, the media will say that "a Health Department official said this, that, and the other," and broadcast it to anyone willing to take it as truth...even though I have my head lodged deep in my @$$. Now, if I see something disturbing while in the course of my official duties, I can not resolve the situation internally (I have excellent management; issues get resolved in my bureau -- this has not hapenned in my 5 years here so far), and the other avenues for resolving this issue are blocked (say, I take the issue to mediation within the city and I get struck down because I'm a peon taking on one of the big-wigs) AND the issue harms the taxpayers that I am working to protect THEN I have an obligation to my community in the City of New York to go to the media with my issue. And if I do this frivolously or am simply in the wrong on the issue, then I need to be a man and face the consequences of my actions, including dismissal and being sued by the city for slander or libel.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Vortran ( 253538 )
      Most of that accepted.. however, you still draw a paycheck from the citizens of NYC. You are therefore beholden to THEM first and foremost. Seems like you recognize that. If one of these citizens asked you a question related to your job, I think you'd answer. What you would not do is stonewall them or refuse to talk at all (silent treatment). You might say, "I can't answer that because I don't really know. I just deal with the computers." but that citizen is ultimately your boss. I wish everyone who
    • That's all pretty much irrelevant since we aren't talking about random computer programmers who might have to talk to someone and get their picture taken.

      We're talking about reporters wanting to speak with the experts in the field to go over the details of something. Would you rather talk to an economist or the PR officer for a fund management company about what the Fed might be about to do with interest rates and what the effects might be? Would you rather speak to a NASA scientist or to a PR officer about

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Ang31us ( 1132361 )
        You missed my point altogether...the point is that the engineers should spend their time and effort working to, as you put it, "save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity." In general, it is a complete waste of their time to talk to the press...leave that to the PR people.

        The case where an engineer has a responsibility to talk to the press is if they know of a safety or financial issue that they

        • Re:I work in government and I don't talk to the pr (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sholden ( 12227 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @07:13PM (#20337329) Homepage
          It's not as I put it, it's as the agency in question put it.

          But I disagree, when part of you aims is to educate then the experts need to do some communicating with the public. If the agency in question isn't there to educate the public then sure the technical people can hide away in their labs. If a particular engineer doesn't like talking to the press they don't need to, but allowing people to ask technical questions and get answers directly from the technical folk it very useful.

          It'll be great fun when the presenting of "A new approach to the geometric control of ultra-long span cable stay bridges" at http://www.bridgemanagement2007.com/ [bridgemanagement2007.com] is done by the PR department and not engineers.
    • You really need to sprinkle some paragraph breaks in there for readability.

  • Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:15PM (#20335781) Homepage
    This is going to be the case more and more with government ... and anybody else with any sense.

    "Reporters" (and I use the term loosely) are trained by large newspapers, journalism programs and the like to qualify sources and to confirm things.

    Now we have a bunch of "journalists" that publish whatever comes into their heads, don't bother to confirm anything and will print nonsense. This isn't just bloggers, this is major publications.

    Can you believe that organizations would like to limit the damage that can be caused by some stray remark that is published?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Vortran ( 253538 )
      NO. Whatever they say is public fodder. Why? Simple. They work FOR US and must ANSWER TO US. WE pay their salaries. If any tax-paying citizen asks them any question regarding the job for which they collect a paycheck FROM US, they need to be absolutely required to answer publicly and on the record. Personally, I don't want to pay this lady's salary anymore.

      This goes for anyone and everyone in government. They are paid by us and need to answer to us and do what WE say, not the other way around. We n

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nyet ( 19118 )
      Err no.

      Reporters (and I use the term loosely) are CURRENTLY trained by corporations, large media companies, and "journalism programs" and the like to increase circulation and marketshare.

  • Unions & the civil service system protect us. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sampson7 ( 536545 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:31PM (#20336007)
    Anyone who has ever bad-mouthed the "lazy government unions" needs to think about this type of directive next time they utter those words. Because of Union protections, this type of directive is rarely enforceable against career government employees.

    Suppose an employee defies this prohibition and speaks with the press. Management is constrained in how it can retaliate. Certainly it can deny future advancement opportunities, but most employees are semi-immune to this type of intimidation because of the civil service system.

    Don't get me wrong -- the same protection that apply to a conscientious employee who feels the need to speak with the press also protects (to a limited degree) someone who sits and plays solitaire all day. But Unions and the civil service system shine at moments like this.

  • not so sinister (Score:4, Insightful)

    by not_anne ( 203907 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @05:33PM (#20336041)
    This may seem on the surface like a coverup, but truth be told, most large organizations have rules that state that the average employee should not comment to reporters in any official capacity. I happen to work at such a company, and have no problem not talking to reporters.

    • Re:not so sinister (Score:4, Insightful)

      by saveth ( 416302 ) <cww@deWELTYnterprises.org minus author> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @07:07PM (#20337247)
      I work for such a company, too, and that policy is fine by me. "Direct media questions to the CEO... yes, leave New York and go to blazing hot Arizona and talk to him" and so forth.

      I think the reason we're even reading this article, though, is that it's talking about a government agency, not a private corporation. Limiting the amount of access the media has to government operations reduces transparency and, in this case, allows a single person to control what the media officially hears.

      That said, employees can still speak anonymously to the media, and if something goes really wrong inside the agency, that's probably what will happen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rhizome ( 115711 )
      This may seem on the surface like a coverup, but truth be told, most large organizations have rules that state that the average employee should not comment to reporters in any official capacity. I happen to work at such a company, and have no problem not talking to reporters.
      Does not follow. Just because you work for a company that forbids its employees from speaking to the media (is this a firable offense?), that doesn't mean that the NHSTA is not trying to cover up problems. There is no connection between

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      most large organizations have rules that state that the average employee should not comment to reporters in any official capacity.

      Right, because the people those employees work for, don't want their employees to do that. Who do government employees work for?

      Your large organization has a policy of not letting peons talk to the public, but you can bet your ass that if The Board of Directors wanted to talk to an employee, the board would have that access. The thing is, with government, the public and the

  • The only one they can quote is Nason herself. However, she refused to be interviewed about the no-attribution policy.

    ...And as my boss Ms. Nason once said, "I", "am", "an", "asshat". I think her words stand on their own. Thank you.

  • While I can understand having communications channeled through an official source, I find it odd that the person has to be the head of the agency.

    The words 'spin control' come to mind, especially when that person is a lawyer and the agency is one that affects our lives on a daily basis.

    I also wonder if the person has ever heard of the concept of delegating a the job of 'official source' to a department which can assign different people to different projects based on expertise.

    It almost sounds like a lawyer

  • I found this entry http://www.zimbio.com/Nicole+Nason+-+Department+o f +Transportation [zimbio.com].

    Ms. Nason's career path: Law Student, Lawyer for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, counsel and communications director for Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss of Florida, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Congressional Affairs w/ the U.S. Customs Service, Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs at the NHTSA, and finall

  • And another freedom bites the dust. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Almost-Retired ( 637760 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @08:59PM (#20338415) Homepage
    This is bull shit and should be spread on a cornfield someplace. As this is something that the public DOES have a right to know, I smell a lawsuit, maybe even class action, but certainly for damages large enough to send a message to worthless demi-gods such as this if it results in even a single PI accident.

    Maybe its time for another Richard Davis bill? That would send the loudest message I believe. In case there are younger readers here, the Richard Davis bill (it had a number but after 30 some years you expect me to remember that? Dontbesilly dear children) was the congressional response, passed both houses by 98%+ yea vote, removing the 4.7 Million dollars the project was estimated to cost from the BATF budget, enjoining them from moving any other monies they may have laying about into the project, and removing the salary (with similar enjoinders about finding other funds to pay him with) of the little demi-god (Richard Davis) who came up with the project in the first place. Nothing gets you fired quite as positively and finally as an act of Congress.

    His offense? He was gonna register all our guns... He went public with the plan while congress was on the campaign trail, BIG mistake, and when they reassembled, the country was literally on fire over it politically, hell I had two personal meetings with my Senator at the time, Pete Dominici, over it myself. First order of business, took about 10 days to get all the i's dotted & t's crossed.

    Yeah, we need another Richard Davis bill.

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
    When in doubt, do it. It's much easier to apologize than to get permission.
                                    -- Grace Murray Hopper

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close