A blogger named Wes Siler — I know little about him — has this recent post….
Interior Orders Politicization Of Death, Injury Reporting In National Parks, Public Lands
“We used to be able to release specifics about serious accidents and incidents,” complains an employee of the National Park Service who has asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. “Now we can’t release any demographics or specifics, just say, ‘the NPS responded to a serious incident’ with no other details. Which basically makes everyone who has someone visiting the park thinking their loved one has died.”
Is it really “political” to issue guidance like..
1.2 Prohibited Language and Framing
The following are not permitted in Interior communications:
• Descriptions of methods, mechanisms, or circumstances of death or injury
• Statements implying intent, motive, or personal factors• Language that assigns blame or responsibility
• Graphic, vivid, or detailed descriptions
Speculative or explanatory framing
Interior shall never:
• Characterize the cause or manner of death
• Attribute intent or mental state
• Describe how an incident occurred in detail
Use euphemisms or alternate phrasing that implies suicide or intent
***********
I read it and didn’t see it. Maybe someone could point me to a part that’s expressly “political.”
I agree that it’s a bad idea not to give people info they need as soon as possible. Communications folks need to help get the word out, not hold it up.
Still, to think that specifics of deaths in Parks are held up due to political reasons (Bison gored Person) seems a bit of a stretch. People die all the time in Parks and elsewhere.
And Wes Siler is a reporter for Outside Magazine among other things documented in his bio here.
You could argue that when a new administration changes something it’s got some politics involved (unless they point to changed circumstances – which isn’t evident here). Especially where it aligns with other observed political motivations – like secrecy.