Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

Post by gvd » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:24 AM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #204

gvd wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Government can fund media, without you immediately thinking of Russia. Being Dutch originally, I would refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_syst... Note that this is not a closed system where there is no private news/tv. Also, look at DW (Deutsche Welle) and BBC. Whatever your opinion, these still provide much better information than whatever you can get in the US (well, yo…

Money _is_ influence. How about letting the media stand on it's own legs? Why should NPR be special? Even their name is a dishonest appeal to authority. It's not random that they have show titles like "Talk of the Nation". As far as I know, NYT does not receive public funding, but I think this window is instructive on how the "elite" media views themselves: http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C…

Post by ojii » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:27 AM UTC

vmeson wrote: post #83

We went through this sort of censorship of government scientists and departments in Canada with the conservative Harper government: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzz... The US should not put up with any, even a temporary form of such censorship of the parts of the government that are doing scientific research and environmental stewardship. There should be another march in a week or two to s…

Post by hawkice » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:28 AM UTC

ryanx435 wrote: post #203

hawkice wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the audience for that comment isn't aware of _any_ EPA regulations and has no curiosity about it. They see the EPA not as a complex organization with multiple goals and many tools to help them achieve those goals, but as a part of something fundamentally wrong-headed.

Do you guys seriously have no self awareness? You seem to view trumps supporters not as a complex group of people with multiple goals but as part of something fundamentally wrong-headed. The hypocrisy is dumbfounding

Post by vacri » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:47 AM UTC

facetube wrote: post #157

vacri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is ironic that the person giving the orders to restrict his subordinates from tweeting can still continue tweeting his stream of consciousness stuff carte blanche... Kind've, kind've not. If you're a government agency and you employ a new staffer outside of PR, you're not expecting them to tweet stream-of-consciousness. Trump, on the other hand, was largely elected because he did do this and it's expected of him…

What evidence is there of this? From this vantage point, it looks like he was elected despite his Twitter falsehoods (read: lies) and stream-of-(un)consciousness, not because of it. He lost the popular vote by three million votes. He is historically unpopular.

Post by ianai » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:56 AM UTC

dashundchen wrote: post #156

nikdaheratik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation is basically the Trump administration wants to control all media messaging (as most administrations do), but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA and others that the secretary level people who should be in place to handle this haven't been nominated in most cases, let alone confirmed. The fact that their solution to their own failure to get people in place is to make things worse by releasing…

Except it's not just social media. It keeps getting repeated as "social media ban" but there is more to it. It's also freezing the distribution of grants and any new business of EPA for a week, if not longer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20... This is while Trump attempts to appoint Scott Pruitt to the head of the EPA. He's a noted opponent of the EPA who frequently litigates against it o…