Not sure why people haven't figured it out - bad news is only happening if it is reported. So if you could simply stop reporting the bad news, then they wouldn't be happening. Seems pretty obvious to me.
It's similar to testing in software development. The more tests you have, the more the tests can break. Therefore the ideal number of tests is zero - no tests, no red builds.
Not sure why people can't get with the program here.
I'm reminded of during the Iraq occupation how Dick Cheney scolded the media for not saying how great things were going and said how much he liked Fox's coverage. And how not long after it was no longer possible to deny that things had gone terribly wrong and things weren't actually so rosy.
"Instead of signing the new policy, the Times journalists — along with dozens of reporters from other outlets — turned in their press passes, opting to cover the military from outside the complex. The Pentagon later welcomed a reconstituted press corps consisting of pro-Trump commentators and influencers."
It was bad enough that the Pentagon hardly shares any bad news. When bad news gets exposed by third parties, e.g. strikes on US facilities and planes, also on Iran's schools and civilian buildings, the Pentagon only covers it up with lies or censure. Any organization that is not committed to spreading the truth is not a good organization, and suppression is worse.
21 comments
It's similar to testing in software development. The more tests you have, the more the tests can break. Therefore the ideal number of tests is zero - no tests, no red builds.
Not sure why people can't get with the program here.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/23/trump-joking-slowin...
----------
Limit badspeak. Boost goodspeak.