Do you think non-responses deserve your time?

[goaded]

"Journalists have an obligation to give the government (or anyone) the opportunity to respond to criticism, but that doesn’t mean they then must publish any non-responsive rant the government then generates."

A journalist recently asked the DoJ about whether one specific action (requesting voter rolls) break a specific law (the Privacy Act of 1974). The DoJ press office responded with generalities about following laws in general.

The journalist explained she was going to update her piece with the information that the DoJ didn't respond to the question asked (they didn't mention voter rolls or the Act), they did not like that.

The whole conversation is archived here: https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile%2Fjessicahuseman.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3lwelq7cf2s23&viewtype=unroll

It reminds me of all four of the people I've blocked on here. They never answered a direct question, they distracted with irrelevant nonsense, and in some cases they literally said they were only trolling.

[Danzigdawson]

That's, very unfortunately, the trump mentality being institutionalized. All of the efforts now underway to make trump's "truth" the official truth should be scary and revolting to the American public.

The conversation shows that they don't mind breaking laws that stands in the way of what they want to do, under the pretense of urgency or need.

They vaguely invoke some other law (in this case, the "federal voting right laws") to try to make it look legit.

They accuse the reporter of lying and being dishonest beforehand. I think that she found the right way to shed a light on it, though. I don't know if she put that exchange in her article but, at least, publishing the whole string of emails on BlueSky is much more revealing than just affirming that the DOJ wouldn't answer about the applicability of the Privacy Act.

[AngryCarl2]

Just the fact that people don't give a genuine response can tell you a lot.

[goaded]

Yes, usually that an honest answer to your question would prove them wrong.

[katiesmuff]

I think people deserve to hear the truth and the whole truth from our government officials especially now with this group of Nazi Thugs doing every little thing they can to destroy America as a free nation. What is happening in Texas right now is a total sham on part of the insane trump group of clowns.

[msmissydc]

In any private situation no. But as reporters you either push for an answer or you use the non-response as an answer.

[goaded]

Should she have printed what they said, despite it not addressing the specifics of the question, though? That route simply encourages non-answers.

[msmissydc]

Yes and no, you can say that in the interviewy didn't answer the question and say what they talked about instead.

[msmissydc]

"There was no response given as to whether or not that action violates the law."

[msmissydc]

And then you can quote the critics that think the action did violate the law.

[goaded]

Agreed.

[dustybiker2]

Ballsy. I love it. Take away their BS message and you take away their power. And teaches them a lesson.

[msc545]

Non-responses are made to distract you and waste your time. They ddo not deserve a response.

[OddBeMe]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not sure why this myth got started.

[In_Trance]

Journalists have no obligation