They're not using "tricks." The whole sentiment is uncalled for. They're keeping order.
EDIT: Oh boy here comes the typical alt-right down vote brigade that showed up on HN over the last year and a half.
There was no reason to downvote me, so you can concentrate on the source of the problem instead of throwing a silly rule at me. But it's far easier to just pinpoint a silly edit I made, isn't it? Let's completely ignore the fact that we are on a thread about the government controlling the media and that it was somehow sufficiently voted up to receive significant attention and that my initial statement somehow warranted downvotes.
And these general sentiments are definitely "alt-right." It has a generally conspiratorial tone with completely overzealous fear mongering about what the FDA is doing.
The press is a deeply flawed institution. The idea that what the press needs to become less flawed is to be more controlled by the subjects of their reporting is, frankly, idiotic. It's genuinely the stupidest thing I've heard this week.
I have no particular bone to pick with the FDA. I neither revere nor hate it. I don't want to defund it, but neither do I think it is above all reproach, nor that it is above trying to make itself look better than it is. But this isn't really about the FDA in particular, but about the general relationship of the subjects of reporting with the press in general, and particularly about the relationship of the government with the press.
Having as reliable as possible information about what our own government is doing is a bedrock foundation of a functioning democracy. We should be doing what we can to make sure that we get that information, not celebrating the government's attempts to manipulate the press. The certainly does not preclude criticizing the press for their many failures, but it does mean supporting them when they do the right thing, as the Scientific American is here.
PS: As far as the general sentiments of the alt-right go, the alt-right is defined by a belief that we should have a more authoritarian government that maintains order and ignores democracy. Guess who sounds kind of alt-right-ish in this conversation?
The government is not blocking any information. It is managing contacts. It wants trust worthy contacts who aren't going to spin things around for financial gain.
The actual information related to their policies are accessible again, by people who actually understand the material. Thousands and thousands of scientists from competing organizations observe and consume information from the FDA. There is nothing stopping journalists from seeking out this information and gathering opinions from the employees of these organizations, or professionals in whatever field they're reporting on in general.
"Do the right thing." How shallow and means absolutely nothing in the context of this conversation. Please say something a bit more substantial than that. The FDA wants to interact with reporters who don't spin information or misquote members of the FDA for their own gain. That's literally it. What's this "do the right thing" battle cry in reference to again?
It's extremely aggravating that this needs to spelled out on this forum these days.
PS: Nothing about what the FDA doing is remotely authoritarian. Stop promoting click bait, and furthermore at the very least don't try pathetically defending it.
A belief in an independent, skeptical, and indeed antagonistic press was a core left-wing value as of, like, the late 20th Century. I think it still is or ought to be.
Because publishing a comprehensive news article with both sides is more disruptive than publishing a press release directly?
Not being concise, diligent, and stringent on what messages get sent out could have extremely negative effects. Letting news organizations pander to people's fears or general ignorance is a recipe for disaster.
I am not even sure why this needs to be explained. I mean, actually at this point on HN I do know why, it's people being disingenuous. Seriously how is this non-sense being upvoted?
From the article: >including ones from major outlets such as Fox News
Seriously, are we going to just sit here and pretend why this was done? An organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information is being denied the ability to spin information from an organization dedicated to the scientific understanding and safety of products. The FDA is basically refusing to play the game of yellow journalism and rightly so.
Spare me the patronizing pathetic attempts at an apology, and excuse me for calling out bullshit from scientific american. Shame on them. And shame on HN for upvoting this.
If they were interested in "refusing to play the game of yellow journalism" they would not pre-announce their activities at all.
And are you really saying that Scientific American is "an organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information"?
The FDA gets _true_ oversight from the thousands and thousands of scientist who work within the organization, who work outside the organization, and other organizations who have vested interests in "trashing" certain findings and approvals by the FDA. It sounds like you don't know how the FDA is generally set up so it would do you well to look into it. It's not exactly private.
The FDA again, doesn't want to play the game of yellow journalism. Why is this confusing? The following makes absolutely no sense, by the way. From your own post: "they would not pre-announce their activities at all." Please do elaborate how this somehow negates their motivations for not wanting the press to get out of hand and send false signals to the public. You can't just provide one little quip and expect that to unravel all their motivations. Again, I'm really struggling to see how this is confusing to anyone who has worked with anything remotely public, or even at a big corporation!
And no, I am not sure how a direct quote about Fox News and a sentence that follows the direct quote somehow gets misconstrued as me talking about "Scientific American." _However_, Scientific American has been known (especially over the last couple of years), to engage in generally click baity, irrefutably unscientific publications. Just like it is doing here.
Your hatred of Fox News is noted, however the government has no right to discriminate against media outlets. Considering that Fox has the largest viewership of any US news channel, you'd think that the FDA would have a mandate to ensure that their policies were reported to the largest audience.
Seriously, Politico was on the preferential list and not Fox? That's just pettiness on the part of the FDA and it's obvious that they have an agenda. My point isn't that Fox isn't given advance access -- my point is that there ought not be exclusionary access lists in the first place.
That is the most backwards statement you possible could have made. I am not even sure if you really believe it yourself.
>however the government has no right to discriminate against media outlets.
Yes they do.
>my point is that there ought not be exclusionary access lists in the first place.
And you've done nothing to negate my point that not only that they should and it makes sense to do so, but why you think letting news organizations run wild with public health information is a responsible thing to do. It's foolish, naive, and ignorant.
But that is essentially orthogonal to the issue of whether embargoes should be "close-hold", in those cases where the FDA does trust a reporter enough to grant them early access. After all, if the reporter merely wants to cast aspersions and FUD, a close-hold embargo doesn't really prevent them from doing so; they can probably come up with it on their own, or cite preexisting criticism related to the subject (regardless of how well it matches up with the exact announcement at hand). It is only if they want to get informed, on-topic reactions from sources with relevant knowledge and experience that the embargo gets in the way. Indeed, such an embargo may all but force even well-meaning journalists to include misleading or useless "context" - decreasing the accuracy of the article - just to provide some slight semblance of impartiality, as in this example from the Scientific American article:
> CBS plunked down an out-of-context quotation from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, probably in hopes that readers wouldn't notice that it was two months old.
Now, I suppose it's possible that well-meaning journalists end up too credulously repeating the statements of sources with, as you say, vested interests in bashing the FDA. I suppose hamstringing them from even talking to those sources, along with all others, could hypothetically increase the overall accuracy of the article.
But let's be real. What you end up with is essentially a series of glorified press releases. Press releases have their place: to inform the public of a particular organization's viewpoint. True, the FDA is an expert organization and chances are its viewpoints are typically reasonable - valid - plausible. Indeed, they're almost certainly more studied and thorough than a quick reaction from any other source. But even so, valid is not the same as right, and for issues as contentious as the ones the FDA often ends up having to deal with, there is rarely any single right viewpoint. Thus citing a range of sources, rather than providing the public with any organization's viewpoint alone, is the only responsible thing to do. That is not yellow journalism: it is the essence of journalism.
Seriously: do you really think -
> Even after he updated his piece later in the day to get some outside comments, there was little hint of how controversial the new rules were. Members of the tobacco industry were generally unhappy with increased federal regulation of their business, while antitobacco advocates tended to argue that the new regulations were far too weak and took way too long to promulgate. And there was no mention, in Felberbaum's article, at least, that the agency had tried to regulate e-cigarettes several years earlier but was slapped down with a stinging rebuke from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- that omitting this context is an improvement?
It makes it pretty difficult to have any kind of information to spin. Whether or not it's 100% preventative measure is as you say, orthogonal to helping prevent the issue in the first place. If they have nothing to quote of context, or twist their words, any material they make will be generally lackluster to their audiences.
>What you end up with is essentially a series of glorified press releases.
The FDA does not have a PR branch. It is smartly using the press to get information out to the public.
>But even so, valid is not the same as right, and for issues as contentious as the ones the FDA often ends up having to deal with, there is rarely any single right viewpoint.
Allow me to be extremely blunt here: who cares? Again these view points are largely handled through the actual scientific process. The general public with no knowledge on the subject being discussed isn't going to properly shift through competing view points, and it is exceedingly unlikely these other view points are correct by the time the FDA wants to give a press release about certain processes or products.
Again, this information about these other view points isn't private. The FDA just doesn't want the press to misinform the public. What is so controversial about this?
>Thus citing a range of sources, rather than providing the public with any organization's viewpoint alone, is the only responsible thing to do.
There is nothing stopping organizations from researching these issues on their own and reporting them. The FDA just doesn't want the press to spin their statements into something that could harm the public in any form. If you go to a press event, you are expected to report accurately on FDA's statements and processes, or else you're not going to be invited back.
I would like an explanation what the big deal is about actions the FDA are specifically taking in direct regards to the close-hold embargo without resorting to absurd claims that the FDA is somehow ruining journalistic integrity. Report the statements accurately and when the FDA is ready for the public to view them. Journalistic integrity is not being ruined. Journalists can still investigate the products on their own, and report other organization's findings.
>that omitting this context is an improvement?
The real question is how is that paragraph adding anything of value to the new rules and regulations by the FDA? People tend to get lost in the minuet talking points and stick to pedantic details with stories like these. Again, the FDA wants to have direct statements on these matters so there isn't any confusion about what they're doing or what they're going to try do.