Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kon-Peki | Hacker News Reader

> However, Fermilab may not deserve all the blame, says a theoretical physicist who requested anonymity to protect relations with DOE. For example, he says, after the lab finally hammered out an excavation contract with Thyssen Mining, months passed before DOE approved it. “I’m not sure whether it’s really the lab that has a problem, or if it’s DOE that has a problem and is blaming the lab.”

If you need anonymity to talk to a reporter, you already know that DOE has a problem.

View on HN

> If you need anonymity to talk to a reporter, you already know that DOE has a problem.

I know nothing of the issues going on but this just isn't a universal truth. Most people would speak anonymously when talking about their employer and that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with their employer.

Which employers allow their employees to speak poorly of them in public without permission to speak about the company?

In general, companies are pretty sensitive about employees talking to reporters. And certainly employees who aren't media trained and talking about things that aren't explicitly public. Depends to some degree on the employee and the topic, but generally talking to media outside of official channels can easily get someone in trouble even at relatively open companies.

Translation: poor leadership is endemic.

No civil service government employee should openly talk to the media, ever.

Government should operate in secret?

Insider leaks and “the fourth estate” are arguably part of checks and balances in modern democracy, but it’s clearly untenable for every employee of the government (or any large organization) to be empowered to speak on its behalf.

AFAIK the rule for federal employees is they’re allowed to speak publicly and opine on political matters, but not to identify themselves as government employees while doing so.

It is not arguably. It simply is.

Statement should read no civil service government employee should talk to the media about their work or workplace unless the authority to speak on the topic on which they are speaking is in their formal job description, or they have been approved to speak to the media by someone who’s formal job description gives them authority to approve that they do so.

I am all for radical transparency in the public sector, but part of that transparency requires that the individuals communicating have a precise understanding of technical communication. I’ve seen inaccurate communication cause very similar issues to those caused by a lack of communication.

How does those instances compare to the number of times things that would be in the public interest were not shared, because the trained communicators knew it was bad for the bureaucracy?

I say this as a federal scientist myself.

These issues are just two sides of the same coin.

Knowledge is power, and knowledge of what is going on can be used to harm the organization by outside actors - pathological and good ones - and control of information can be used by harmful internal actors to harm folks too.

Since (legitimately) harmful outside actors aren’t going away, especially in this space…..

US nat. lab. employees are not gov't employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com