America deserves quality information that is accurate, objective, unbiased and reproducible
William L. Kovacs
The Federal government has left citizens living in information confusion, misinformation and conspiracy theories. Information clutter helps explain why only two in ten Americans trust Washington to do the right thing. But distinguishing between good and bad quality information should never be difficult when the information comes from our government.
There is a U.S. law that mandates that government-disseminated information be accurate and useful and have integrity. The federal government just refuses to abide by the Information Quality Act (IQA), section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001.
The Information Quality Act is designed to foster trust
The IQA requires that the Office of Management of Budget (“OMB”) ensure and maximize “… the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by federal agencies.”
In 2002, OMB issued detailed guidelines defining the IQA terms. Information disseminated by the government was to be accurate (precise, complete and unbiased); useful to intended users; and possessing integrity (protected from manipulation). OMB also set forth a correction process for citizens, including experts, to challenge data inaccuracies.
For influential scientific information, there must be a “high degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third parties.” IQA procedures were designed to build trust in government information by following a modified scientific method of testing and reproducibility of data.
Information was defined as “any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form.” Dissemination of information to the public includes agency distribution of information to the public.
While opinions are not covered by the IQA, when it is presenting an opinion instead of information, the agency must clearly identify it as an opinion.
Had IQA guidelines been followed during Covid, for example, the federal government would have provided the public with more useful information.
By not following IQA guidelines during Covid briefings, misinformation and opinion were often presented as fact, without any supporting documentation or without the statement being noted as opinion.
As a result, citizens were forced to live in lockdowns, masks were mandated, schools were closed, causing massive learning losses, and natural immunity was deemed a conspiracy theory. Government agencies issued mandates, but provided little supporting information and never presented what levels of uncertainty were involved.
The Biden administration waffled between Presidential statements that it was seeking evidence-based information on Covid’s origins – and the unequivocal statements of leading scientist Dr. Anthony Fauci, who pronounced that it came from an animal. After several years of delay, the FBI and Energy Department finally informed the public that “the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a [Wuhan] laboratory leak,” not from animals.
This served yet again to highlight the difficulty of believing the federal government.
Federal public guidance consisted of Dr. Fauci communicating inconsistent health-related information. First he told the public, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” A few weeks later, he supported universal masking. Subsequently, he endorsed double masking.
Then, as independent scientists offered contrary views, Fauci and his boss, Francis Collins, formulated a press strategy to discredit the credibility of their leading critics, by labeling them conspiracy theorists.
Federal misinformation fostered a state of fear. Eventually, state Attorneys General brought a lawsuit over the legality of Fauci’s mask mandates. In depositions, Fauci could not identify any study he relied upon to support his conflicting policy pronouncements. And when asked direct questions about his knowledge of the virus’s origins or tests supporting his conclusions, he said he “could not remember.”
Such misinformation harmed public health. Not surprisingly, a recent Lancet study found that public trust in government is vital to effectively implementing public health measures.
Since its enactment, the federal government refused to implement the IQA.
From the moment OMB issued the IQA guidelines, federal agencies fought to undermine its implementation. Agencies viewed OMB’s guidelines as discretionary. The Department of Justice supported the agencies in court filings.
The public filed lawsuits against agencies to implement the guidelines and correct inaccurate information. These efforts failed. The courts avoided interpreting the substance of the statute, holding that private parties lacked standing to enforce IQA requirements. The federal courts gave agencies complete discretion on the type of information disseminated to the public.
With strong resistance from the federal government, the IQA drifted into obscurity. It is amazing that on something as vital as public health issues, courts failed or refused to recognize that citizens can be directly injured by public health misinformation.
Imagine if federal agencies followed IQA.
If the IQA had been implemented during Covid, federal agencies would have been limited to disseminating only reliable, consistent, reproducible information – or disclose that the agencies did not have supporting data. Under the IQA, “Mr. Science,” Dr. Fauci, would have been required to inform the public that his daily statements were mere opinions. The public would have known the truth, which would have allowed people to seek guidance from knowledgeable health professionals.
Government health misinformation is propaganda. Fortunately, it can be immediately remedied.
Government information permeates all of our society, from healthcare to climate change, nutrition and labor statistics. Good quality information is essential for protecting government agencies themselves, as well as families, businesses, schools, hospitals and society as a whole.
When government presents misinformation or mere personal opinion as the truth, it harms the citizens it has sworn to protect. When agencies present computer models as evidence (or proof) that we face imminent manmade climate disasters, they likewise harm our economy and lives, unless the models’ results are confirmed by real-world observations, measurements or data.
Fortunately, the government misinformation can be immediately remedied. President Biden could today order OMB to implement the statute by reinstating and enforcing the original IQA Guidelines.
Moreover, Congress could codify the 2002 guidelines and clarify that citizens suffer injury when government misinformation harms their ability to protect their health, livelihoods and welfare.
William L. Kovacs is author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is one of the more naive articles I’ve read recently.
“If only the government had followed the IQA…”
Why such a piddly little wish? Why not wish for something useful, like world peace, or even just following the Constitution?
Not to get all libertarian and individualist and anarchist here, but …
Government is a monopoly and has no market competition to keep it accountable. It defines its own limits. Government employees know who signs their paychecks, and working for the government is the ultimate buzz for bureaucrats, whose only goal is to expand their fiefdom, because budget and employee count are the only way bureaucrats can measure their success.
I generally agree with your comment. Your “It defines its own limits.,” however, is incorrect. We have a Constitution that defines the limits of government action. The fact that some courts won’t enforce clear laws and regulations on out-of-control agencies is a travesty. But there may be some change in the offing, evidenced by SCOTU’s recent ruling against EPA overreach.
Watch the EPA, and other agencies helping them, bypass the SCOTUS ruling with a flick of the wrist. A commenter not here yet, Beta Blocker, could describe how.
My guess is the EPA will crack down on other pollutants such as PM2.5 or methane.
There is also the old fashioned Save the Yellow Bellied Sapsucker Boid argument used to prevent construction. I made up the boid name, but there are always boids and fish to protect.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service, collectively known as the Services, administer the ESA.
The strategy the EPA and other government agencies use to publish regulations which push the envelope of constitutionality is to write rules and regulations which are certain to be challenged in the courts, knowing that those affected must spend considerable time and effort fighting these rules and regulations, and that years may pass before the courts rule one way or the other.
In the meantime, while the lawfare battles are in progress in the courts, the agency will move ahead with the work needed to implement the new rule or regulation in the expectation that the mere threat of the regulation will result in compliance by most affected parties.
More recently, Biden’s people have said openly and explicitly that if a court rules against them, even the US Supreme Court, they will simply ignore the court ruling and go forward with enforcement of their new regulations.
Biden’s people mean what they say. And so if you are the target of one of these new regulations, you know ahead of time in deciding whether to either comply or else to fight it out in the courts, that what is decided in the courts doesn’t matter in the final analysis, because the regulation will be forced on you one way or another.
The main reason that the EPA has a fist around our throats is from “LawFARE.’ List of over 700 notable ones here: VV
Note the number of “Consent Decrees” that establish precedence.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/
“There is also the old fashioned Save the Yellow Bellied Sapsucker Boid argument used to prevent construction. I made up the boid name, but there are always boids and fish to protect.”
Actually, there really is a Yellow Bellied Sapsucker. They visit my bird feeders at times.
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Yellow-bellied_Sapsucker/id# 😎
The Constitution was explicitly written with several vague clauses precisely so interpretation could be as flexible as needed. General Welfare and Necessary and Proper are the worst examples, not just for themselves, but because their degradation led to abusing the rest of the Constitution.
The Framers were a mixed bunch of revolutionaries and statists, and the statists won. But I doubt very man of them would approve of the behemoth we have now.
Dems made a line in the sand saying that any judicial limit put on their administrative sacred cows is an affront and they flood the court with additional judges if they don’t get what they want.
Poland was all but excluded from EU for daring to put a term limit on its judges.
But the same French people who overwhelmingly support sanctions on Poland also support remaking the US judicial system to reflect the “popular vote”.
The U.S. moving from a “rule of law” to a “rule of man” is scary. We were established as a Democratic Republic for that very “rule of law” reason. “Rule of man” means mob rule.
As a libertarian since 1973, I 100% agree with Mr. Scarecrow.
I’m moving in the direction of becoming a libertarian- after watching most of John Stossel’s YouTube channel videos. The breed is extremely rare here in Woke-achusetts.
‘This is one of the more naive articles I’ve read recently.’
Absolutely correct. No competition, means it’s just a feel-good, belling of the cat, exercise. However, a bureaucratic reform, like Trump’s belated ‘Schedule F’ proposal, would at least introduce some political completion into our deep-state. Who knows, maybe some States might even start taking their Constitutional obligations seriously by nullifying the excesses of the Federal government.
Is it really too much to expect the government to follow the law? To demand it?
When it comes to our bureaucracy, it’s the tail wagging the dog. Maybe voters will finally get tired of it and votes for change.
William Kovacs,
This is an important article. It is one of the few paths currently available to those who discern problems with existing data.
It is more important than the flippant rejection of blogger Scarecrow Repair, above. Such comments show a person who is part of the problem, not a solution.
I am not an American citizen. We Australians do not have a similar safeguard to your IQA, but we should press for an Act like the IQA.
American initiatives are often used as examples for us, but some are good and some bad, But, some Australian scientists have presented data that has cornered to world market. One example is the meme that global heatwaves are getting longer, hotter and more frequent. The go-to papers as in IPCC reports are from a couple of authors, Lewis and Perkins Kirkpatrick. However, essentially all of their numbers start after year 1950. Question is, if one of you in the USA wanted to challenge this using IQA, is there a useful pathway? Or is the Act limited to numbers generated in America by Americans? Geoff S
A good question and, having read the requirements, do not think it would restrict you from submitting a request for correction. Good supporting scientific information is most important. While they could respond with their own scientific basis, the requirement requires them to include uncertainty, which they never do. Good luck Geoff.
Jeff (with a J although I was named for an Aussie uncle).
The problem is that in the administrative state no individual is accountable, certainly not Fauci.
There are no individual penalties and any judgements against government agencies are settled ultimately by taxpayers.
I’m reminded of the outrageously manipulated data put out by the NIFC about the wildfire trend in US and their preposterous alibi.
The Energy and FBI aren’t health agencies and their opinion isn’t worth a ‘bats ar*e*. The energy dept even said they had low confidence of the lab leak theory
Other agencies have the opposite view, but that doesn’t get a look in
“Additionally, the Energy Department reportedly shared the information with other agencies, but none of them changed their own conclusions.
Four agencies and a national intelligence panel said they believe the pandemic likely started with natural transmission from animal to human.”
In the US messed up bureaucracy the DOE, Department of Energy” is the department that oversees the vast majority of the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons system research, development, and funding. Nuumber and location of which re SS, Need to now, estimate is that it is many more than a dozen US labs and many more in more than a dozen countries. They employ more than China and they are at least as intelligent.
Burn after reading.
Medical evidence for effectiveness of masks…..not hard to find
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html
Same as for vaccines, any emergency doctor will tell you the ICU were mostly full of the non vaccinated. It’s not a golden shield but then what in medicine is
No one was or is vaccinated. When an injection doesn’t prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, it’s not a vaccine. Wearing even a surgical mask to stop a virus is the equivalent of wearing a traffic cone on your head so incoming meteors bounce off.
Masks are not for preventing viral transfer and may increase your chance of getting sick
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/
So they think the gain-of-function furin cleavage arose naturally?
Is it still April 1st?
For Tucker fans: The same thing happened, is happening, in the UK
i.e. A 50 year high rate of excess death when there should be a high rate of Excess Life
https://rumble.com/v2ailv0-tucker-carlson-interview-ed-dowd.html
Back on topic: Yes very lovely IQA but c’mon. You are a very eager young puppy and you’re chasing a parked car. When you catch up with it, you will be embarrassed and or hurt
i.e. How could anything emanating from Government NOT be of Government Mandated Quality?
That is The Parked Car you’re going to crash into
Thanks for the link
In the US the excess deaths peaked in March and April 2020 and have gradually declined since them. But they have not declined much. I find it hard to believe that UK excess deaths are currently higher than any month in 2020.
The best website for UK Covid information, IMHO, is listed below. I visit every day and read every new article. Most re good, but not all of them. Some get recommended on my blog
The Expose – Home (expose-news.com)
Anyone who expects honesty from governments is deluded,
With Democrats controlling the Presidency and the Congress, I must say the author is quite a dreamer.
With the consistent lying and misinformation on almost every subject by Democrats, and many Republicans too, at least we know immediately that we are not hearing te truth. No analysis is needed. Just assume the government is trying to BS you and you will usually be right.
I publish a blog that recommends up to 48 short articles each morning (not this one) with the goal of refuting leftist misinformation and lies. An honest government would end my hobby:
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
For leftists, ONLY leftist government authorities are the quality source of information. The leftists in positions of authority are the “experts”. That is how leftists have wafted governments to work for the past century:
The leftists Rule by “Experts” needs to be combined with the proposed RESTRICT ACT to legalize government censorship of the internet. The RESTRICT ACT, would create totalitarianism in the US. And we are already on the way there.
The RESTRICT Act Would Restrict a Lot More Than TikTok (reason.com)
and we in the UK are sliding down that slope too with the Online Harms Bill – until “people” erase they have been “had”…hopefully not to late…
Thanks for the link to your blog. This one from your “Blue” list is pretty good:
Why You Should Ignore The Latest IPCC Climate Report
I don’t expect honesty from our government but I demand it.
Pull a Nikita Krushchev
Take your shoe off and pound it on the table to demand honesty
Then the Democrats will steal your shoe.
Kruscev Beat the Rhythmic Shoe – YouTube
The UK media is suggesting that while Biden was dozing off, China’s Xi grabbed Soudi Arabia, moving it from prowestern client state to the China’s sphere of influence.
Power politics crush by falling asleep at the wheel.
Biden wasn’t dozing on Saudi Arabia, he was actively condemning Saudi Arabia and its leader, and siding with the Mad Mullahs of Iran, and as a consequence, Biden has pushed Saudi Arabia into the Chicom’s open arms.
Biden is a dangerous fool who is systemtically destroying the United States and its interests.
China just signed with SA couple of long term fixed contracts for oil supplies. Assume C invades Formosa and US puts sanctions on anyone trading with Xi, I doubt that SA would stop selling its oil.
If C is not getting all oil it needs from Russia, Iran, Indonesia etc, why would they need SA, unless they have some other plans?
Cmon, that oil has to get to China. Just as during WWII, Japan in the Pacific, and Germany in the Atlantic, oil quit flowing to their homeland factories and other uses once the allies shut down ocean trade.
By the end of WWII Japan was using unrefined oil to run what was left of their navy.
The US, UK, France and, soon Australia, have sufficient attack submarines to stop any oil from getting to China by sea. And Coal. And whatever, that is not delivered by land from Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.
The volumes of oil and coal needed to run China’s economy, even after ALL exports and associated manufacturing are stopped, would no longer be available.
Remember the war in the Pacific was probably extended about a year due to the crappy torpedo the US had at the beginning of the war and the insistence of the Pentagon to believe the clowns in procurement (you know the people they went to parties in DC with) over their submarine commanders.
Up to 90% of the “hits” in the early war period were DUDS.
Now, with our current Pentagon, I don’t have much better confidence in the current crop of torpedoes, but now one torpedo equals one ship down. Non China owned shipping companies will almost immediatly stop carrying cargo to or from China once the new allies, Australia, UK, US, Japan, South Korea and possibly France, Vietnam and the Philippines blockade the South China Sea.
I don’t know how much China has stockpiled of raw materials and foodstuffs but they have a lot of mouths to feed and they are a very corrupt country, almost as corrupt as the US democrat party, so once push comes to shove, who knows what will happen.
You invisage full Pacific war, not a chance, else Xi would nuke Formosa. USA is not going to risk nuclear confrontation for an ‘island on the other side of the globe which is not of its vital national interest’.
It took Pearl Harbor for it to enter WWII, despite all of the Churchill’s pleas.
I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to be in China’s sphere of influence. The Saudi family are great at manipulating others. China, like other nations, will regret its move into the Middle East. And Africa too. These regions don’t like colonizers.
And without oil and other natural resources, these regions have NOTHING to offer the rest of the world.
Many people who post here have been to Africa and the Middle East. Would someone please tell my WHY the US and Western Europe waste so much on these regions? Especially since the US, essentially, became oil self sufficient, and before the Ukraine invasion Europe didn’t really need the Saudi oil?
Just asking. As one who understands the US is the only nation capable of enforcing open ocean free passage, why we and the UK are still protecting oil transport in the Middle east? Protecting shipping from piracy in the Indian Ocean?
And as to the UK, they are loyal mutual allies with the US, but the Falkland Island war showed they didn’t then, and much less now, have the ability to project sea power around the world by themselves. Any China conflict will again, fall on the US to end the conflict, If we can.
A government telling the truth and protecting its citizens – that would be a first.
From the article: “The IQA requires that the Office of Management of Budget (“OMB”)”
United States Office of Management and Budget
Scientists Discover Strong Correlation Between Trusting Government And Eating Paint Chips
https://babylonbee.com/news/scientists-discover-strong-correlation-between-trusting-government-and-eating-paint-chips
Imagine if federal agencies followed IQA.
Imagine if Biden’s administration followed the law. I can’t.
If we accept as true the statement that “only two in ten Americans trust Washington to do the right thing,” then I would like for someone to explain why five in ten Americans vote for more of it.
“five in ten…”
Are you counting votes or ballets?
First and foremost there should never be trust in any Government at any level at any time. This is fully discussed by the US Constitution designers. This should be woefully obvious with all the school-board meetings in the past 3 years.
The fact that the US Government has both the FOIA and IQA means that it cannot and should not be trusted and is telling you sit down and STFU. The origin of the FOIA, if memory serves, was Congress was trying to practice it’s Constitutionally oversight powers of the various executive agencies. They were not cooperating. So, Governmental unelected and unappointed bureaucrats told congress STFU – they were not acting with either integrity, nor honesty. The government cannot trust the government so they made an law. A law in which the various executive government will always force a Judge to make a ruling in the hopes a Judge will make a ruling to curtail information being released to either the public or to congress.
In another equal act of dishonesty and integrity…
Take for instance that NOAA an agency that needs and use scientific instruments does not have to follow the same rules that the FDA, EPA, USDA, NIH, CDC ( at a technical level not a government agency) imposes on society.
That is one powerful statement —
Gerry Spence, the lawyer who was involved in the Ruby Ridge case back in the ’90’s
wrote a book about the affair, From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in
America. In that book he made an observation of government workers. He noted that
in the education side of the country the top athletes get picked by the major league
sports teams for big money. fame ect, and the ones who don’t end up
pushing a broom or selling used cars or such.
In the academic arena the top performers get hired by the
large corporations for very competitive wages, conditions ect. And the scrubs, well
they go to work in the government. . I’ve been around enough
government bureaucrats and I have to agree somewhat, a number of those
types go from the private side to the public side, very corrupt situation..
I had no idea this rule was on the books. We need to take full advantage of it. To those who think this idea is naive or a pipe dream I say you are wrong. You say we can’t do anything because the government is standing in our way. Well no kidding. What do you expect that these sorry bureaucrats and administrators are going to passively tie their own hands? They are going to fight tooth and nail to preserve their lying and cheating ways. That is not the point they must be forced to obey the law no different than you and me. This is our path to hold those liars and cheats accountable. If it was easy it would have already been done. Governments need to be held to a higher standard than us. We have given them great power and with that power comes responsibility. Not lying and cheating is number one. We need to see to it that this rule is enforced, when we do almost all of our troubles will go away.
Why the hell should the Government start respecting any law right now?
Because we demand it.
This should be the primary tool to challenge EPA, NOAA, NASA, etc. by many of the organizations that promote climate skepticism. These government organizations flagrantly ignore this legal obligation and the law provides for challenging compliance failure.
Included in the law is the requirement to not accept journal peer reviews as acceptable quality control of issues of significant financial consequence, which brings into question whether any of the IPCC reports meet IQA/515 requirements.
Should fact checking services and their consumers mention on each and every check that they aren’t being literally factual about facts and that none of their statement of fact checking is a statement of fact?
If not, why aren’t
going after each and every fact checking service or consumer, I’m looking at you Facebook?
Yes the FEC is a complete joke disband it and impeach the whole election so-called law.
Maybe don’t disband the FTC but some pretending “we care about consumers, we care about false advertising”.
I would use it to discredit the government – because it does. I wouldn’t use it to fix government – because you can’t. That would take events that change the governed and most of those are managed by the government. (Events like COVID, and global warming and identity transgression). We’ll see about bigger, more existential and less psychologically-based crises later.)