Top health bureaucrat admits to reading a script - how common is this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Socrates92

Guest
Busted! How many more are doing exactly the same thing?

And yet these buffoons wonder why a lot of people don’t take them seriously.

[Top Ontario doctors: “I just say whatever they write down for me” - YouTube]
 
Last edited:
If I was giving a statement that goes out to the country or world, even if I wrote it myself I would want a teleprompter. I’m a rarity in that I actually like public speaking (as in education, not entertainment), but something recorded and seen by millions–teleprompter? Yes please. (name removed by moderator)ut from my colleagues and help writing the statement? Again, yes please. These people represent a large network of activity and having others prepare a statement or speech, I see no problem in this :woman_shrugging:t2:
 
No, they should be ready to draw on their own knowledge and expertise. If someone has a difficult question, the top official should not be reading the answer off a script. Also, they themselves should be critically reviewing what is “written down for them”, and correcting and making changes where it doesn’t line up with “the science”. She should have an exhaustive knowledge and understanding of her speech, and exactly how it matches the data represented on “all these papers”. Your comment about simply reading off a teleprompter might make sense if she were a politician, but she presumably is also a health expert. This official effectively admitted that she herself has no ownership over the advice that is leading the province’s health mandates, and therefore Ford’s repeated assertions that he’s simply following her advice falls flat.
 
Okay, did you start the thread to vent with likeminded people or entertain other perspectives? You don’t have to agree, obviously, but did you even entertain my perspective and why someone might act in the manner you’re deriding? There are people, even those with vast knowledge and experiences, who utterly freeze in these situations. Their minds go completely blank. Anyhow, I’m out of this thread.
 
NevermoreLenore said:
Okay, did you start the thread to vent with likeminded people or entertain other perspectives? You don’t have to agree, obviously, but did you even entertain my perspective and why someone might act in the manner you’re deriding?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean. There is no obligation in a discussion to agree (or “entertain”) a contrary perspective. If I had simply wanted to “vent with like-minded individuals”, I wouldn’t have responded point-by-point to your comment. I’m open to being persuaded, but you have to offer an argument that is convincing.
NevermoreLenore said:
There are people, even those with vast knowledge and experiences, who utterly freeze in these situations. Their minds go completely blank.
Click to expand...
They should not be in those positions, as they are not competent.
NevermoreLenore said:
Anyhow, I’m out of this thread.
Click to expand...
As you wish. Seems like you are the one who did not want to have a discussion.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
Looks like you picked a real unbiased source there. NOT.
Click to expand...
What difference does that make? The words that she said are the same regardless. (Unless you’re implying that Rebel fabricated the whole thing with some kind of deepfake tech?) You can disagree with Rebel’s analysis if you wish…
 
FiveLinden said:
48.png
Socrates92:
Yes, we have such a thing as Scripture, and Mass rubrics. You are agreeing with me that the content of public health press releases seems to be dictated by some central, or perhaps universal authority, like it is at Mass?
Click to expand...
Well they are certainly dictated by an authority. And public health messages should always be prepared carefully to avoid ambiguity.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. The provincial cabal has been trying to convince us that these people are the ones making the decisions, based on their own expertise. In reality they seem to be taking orders from someone higher up, with zero actual connection to the local situation. Which suggests to me that the mandates have very little to do with the actual data.
 
Last edited:
Socrates92 said:
Yes, we have such a thing as Scripture, and Mass rubrics. You are agreeing with me that the content of public health press releases seems to be dictated by some central, or perhaps universal authority, like it is at Mass?
Click to expand...
Well they are certainly dictated by an authority. And public health messages should always be prepared carefully to avoid ambiguity.
 
Socrates92 said:
Busted! How many more are doing exactly the same thing?

And yet these buffoons wonder why a lot of people don’t take them seriously.

[Top Ontario doctors: “I just say whatever they write down for me” - YouTube]
Click to expand...
Context is everything.

For example who the “they” is doing the writing.

If the speaker is a spokesperson for a group then it is entirely appropriate to read from a statement prepared by the group and in fact inappropriate to interject personal opinion or go off script.

And someone may be a very highly qualified scientist or doctor without necessarily having the credentials in every area that a group covers to call out colleagues who may in some areas be more knowledgeable.
 
Socrates92 said:
They should not be in those positions, as they are not competent.
Click to expand...
By that standard no one is competent. Any individual, no matter how competent, is going to have gaps in their professional knowledge, or the occasional moment where they just blank.
 
Stop right there! The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Christ’s mass. He set down a formula, through His teaching and via the authority He have to His Church, as to the form of the sacrifice. BHe commanded “Do this, as often as you do it, in memory of Me”. Focus on the “do this” as he is commanding the first formula of the mass. It is read so that nothing is missing and the mass is complete and correct.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
By that standard no one is competent. Any individual, no matter how competent, is going to have gaps in their professional knowledge, or the occasional moment where they just blank.
Click to expand...
That would be an interesting side debate to have. I’m certainly open to the argument that no one is competent to fill such public health positions, so perhaps shouldn’t exist at all.

But that is a separate issue. Assuming that the position itself is legitimate, it is one that reguires, as a substantial part of the job that the person communicate to 14 Million people about measures that will affect many of them egregiously, some of them for life, or possibly generations. I don’t think it’s too much to insist that they not be the type to “completely freeze” on stage such that they are 100% incapable of articulating any thought that wasn’t prerecorded on a script. They themselves should have had a part in the preparation of the script, and know it like the back of their hand before walking into a press conference. We’re paying around half a million for these people’s salaries and benefits. It is not unreasonable to expect that they be able to do the job to a reasonable standard.
 
Last edited:
LilyM said:
Context is everything.

For example who the “they” is doing the writing.
Click to expand...
I know. That is exactly what I’m wondering.
LilyM said:
If the speaker is a spokesperson for a group then it is entirely appropriate to read from a statement prepared by the group and in fact inappropriate to interject personal opinion or go off script.

And someone may be a very highly qualified scientist or doctor without necessarily having the credentials in every area that a group covers to call out colleagues who may in some areas be more knowledgeable.
Click to expand...
These two doctors are the two top individuals responsible for the public health policy recommendations (I say recommendations, because the Premiere is technically the one responsible for the policy itself, even though he has effectively abrogated that authority). Their personal opinion is precisely the “expert” opinion that we’ve been kowtowing to day and night for the past year. It is not too much to ask that they actually take personal ownership for the words they are saying.
 
As I understand it, @FiveLinden’s remark was not belittling the Mass, but rather raising it as an example of appropriate and necessary reading from a script. The implication is that it was similarly necessary for the public health officials to read the official statement rather than paraphrasing or reciting from memory.
 
Last edited:
@Socrates92, Priest admits to reading the words of Consecration. Problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top