Not That Obama was lying, exactly, or something

[drwex]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-cites-security-more-censor-deny-records

An in-depth AP story shows how the Obama administration, which started off promising to be "the most transparent in history" has in fact denied more Freedom of Information requests than any other. Ever.

Given the current climate it's sort of unsurprising that their most-cited reason for denying citizen and journalist requests is "national security."

Nothing to see here, move along.

Comments

[macthud]

Counter-data comes against data. I haven't seen actual data to be countered yet.

I've seen aggregates, and partials, and assertions.

I haven't seen anything that can't be spun and interpreted multiple ways.

Historical transparency has been rather, shall we say, nonexistent, and it seems to me that no matter how much improvement Obama's administration might improve that, it won't (and possibly can't) be enough to visibly demonstrate that improvement.

And that's the biggest problem.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Data exists, yes?

And, you seem to be arguing, (several different) people with an ideological bent have interpreted that data in a particular way and offered it to prove a point.

If the data is so easily to manipulate - and the first group is doing so dishonestly - then surely (at least a few) people with a different ideological bent could have interpreted that data in a different way and used it to counter a point.

I haven't seen the counter. Have you?

And also, without any data at all, my gut feeling is if in any group of people I happen to know I began a conversation with "hey, isn't it great how Obama has been following his campaign promise for more transparency in government?" I would be assumed to be being sarcastic. What do you think?