> a close-hold embargo doesn't really prevent them from doing so;
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.
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.