Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 312 posts

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#91

Post by nikdaheratik »

ianai wrote: post #80
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…

I hope that's "all" that's going on here. That's horrible, but it smells a lot more like signalling complete shutdowns.

Well that's the thing the administration doesn't seem to get: you shouldn't try and micromanage things if you don't know how it works. And they're so paranoid about their media "image" that they leave the chance for FUD to creep in without encouragement. And not everything in their agenda is acceptable to most Americans, so it's hard to tell what's FUD and what's just their usual policy.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#92

Post by belovedeagle »

sqeaky wrote: post #26

This is surprisly reasonable compared to what I thought it was going to say when I heard about it first from others. The first I heard it was "A total media blackout" on the EPA and other departments. This article just says, that buzzfeed says, that goverment employees can't post on Twitter and Facebook claiming their personal opinion is policy. Unless I misread something, let me know if I did, or if this article is…

From what I can tell, there was a notice that public-facing communication be put on hold. Then EPA employees started howling that since peer reviewed articles are public, the administration had just ordered a gagging of all scientific endeavors. The administration put out a clarification that of course scientific articles weren't banned, upon which the media jumped on this as evidence that "aha! So you did ban science and now we made you back down!"

I'm no fan of Trump but this behavior by the left is absolutely idiotic.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#93

Post by garrettgrimsley »

whyileft wrote: post #42
jquery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size? To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-poli...

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that…

>3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now?

Can we please not do this here?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#94

Post by TD-Linux »

whyileft wrote: post #42
jquery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size? To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-poli...

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that…

>In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime.

I, for one, am happy that I live in a country where I don't have to worry about being prosecuted for making HN comments.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#95

Post by kafkaesq »

ColanR wrote: post #79
kafkaesq wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? It's the aims of the control, and the utter brazenness with which the new administration attempts to manipulate facts and reality in general that are different. There's never been an administration (well, maybe in the 19th century; but I mean, not since the dawn of modern journalistic reporting) that blatantly and transparently lied about such public…

Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes" is one of the same sources that thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide, then you have nothing to say. I'm not going to say I agree there were illegal votes, but I am holding out for better evidence.

Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election.

So if you met someone on a street corner who pointed at the sky, and told you "Hey look, it's orange with pink polka-dots" -- would you think to yourself, "Hmm, I'm tempted to be skeptical -- but then again, when I asked this guy for the time the other day, he gave a correct enough answer. So maybe he's right this time, too."

If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes"...

So are you suggesting that the "millions" claim stands until disproven? Is that really how you see things?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#96

Post by whyileft »

jquery wrote: post #61
whyileft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that…

You're right, Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." He literally auctioned off the posts, giving the ambassadorships to campaign contributors and bundlers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nom... ). It's easy to find replacements if you don't care about qualifications and just reward your donor list, I guess. One of the ambassadors was so bad, staffers working for her requested transfers to…

You did not answer my question. I expect an answer.

Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#97

Post by jquery »

kafkaesq wrote: post #50
jquery wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? I don't see what's Orwellian about it. Presidents have always controlled the official department media their agencies put out.

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? It's the aims of the control, and the utter brazenness with which the new administration attempts to manipulate facts and reality in general that are different. There's never been an administration (well, maybe in the 19th century; but I mean, not since the dawn of modern journalistic reporting) that blatantly and transparently lied about such public…

Fact-check: There is at least one study that support the President's beliefs on millions of people voting illegally. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414...

There is a Harvard rebuttal to that study, but that doesn't change the fact there is a study supporting the President's position.

The inauguration was the most-watched in history (person + tv + live-streaming), yet the "reality" I'm seeing in California is that Obama's was far more popular. Who is bending reality? It depends on the reality you're already pre-disposed to believe.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#98

Post by badsock »

jquery wrote: post #61
whyileft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that…

You're right, Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." He literally auctioned off the posts, giving the ambassadorships to campaign contributors and bundlers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nom... ). It's easy to find replacements if you don't care about qualifications and just reward your donor list, I guess. One of the ambassadors was so bad, staffers working for her requested transfers to…

You were incorrect and you admitted it, which is good, but then you immediately move the goalposts and then use that to pretend that you were justified in your original assertation.

That's a shady rhetorical technique, and I suspect you're arguing in bad faith. That's worth some downvotes.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#99

Post by nikdaheratik »

rokosbasilisk wrote: post #37

Just to add a reality check, the epa isnt some noble organization , they are highly political and often incompentent. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/...

As opposed to every other government organisation in Washington which are all totally apolitical, and totally competent.

The focus isn't on what the EPA does or doesn't do, but on what the administration is trying to do, whether that actually matches up with how business is usually done in the organisation, and how this looks to the rest of America.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#100

Post by dghughes »

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…

Yes it's amazing we put up with it for so long and then voted for Harper again!! My guess is it was apathetic young voters and frightened Boomers who lost 1/3 or half of their retirement savings in 2008 just as they were going to retire.

Harper even changed Government of Canada to the Harper Government too bizarre at the time even more bizarre looking back.

There was supposedly a secret portrait library of all portraits of Harper viewing by appointment only.

Post reply on HN