This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Charlie Bolden's Upcoming Off The Record Briefing

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 23, 2012
Filed under ,

Keith’s note: Charlie Bolden will be speaking at Charles Bolden Speaks at The Future of Strategic Partnerships in Space hosted by the Atlantic Council on 23 October. According to the Atlantic Council this event will be “closed to press and off-the-record”. But apparently anyone can ask to attend but they waive their right to free speech in so doing, it would seem. Why is the NASA Administrator having a discussion with a private organization about matters that the media cannot report on – and that no one in attendance can reveal? How did NASA public affairs sanction Bolden’s participation in such an exclusive, elitist, and clearly non-transparent activity? With China’s space program being one of the stated issues of concern for this event it is rather baffling that Bolden’s comments would be declared unrepeatable by/to the public. I wonder what a FOIA request for Bolden’s prepared comments would get as a response from NASA.
Keith’s update: NASA PAO has declined to respond to a request made yesterday morning seeking clarification on this issue.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

8 responses to “Charlie Bolden's Upcoming Off The Record Briefing”

  1. npng says:
    0
    0

    You have to admit, its twistedly funny to see Atlantic Council publicizing the event but then declaring it closed to the press and off the record.  But then most everything that has any chance of getting done productively in WDC gets done that way.

    I’ve been in well over 400 meetings in DC over the last decade that are conducted with executives at Charlie’s level, or higher, and virtually all of the meetings are that way.  Only.  Emphatically.  Even in instances where there are over 50+ people in a group in a meeting, NFA – not-for-attribution is the imperative.  Pencils down, no recorders, mum is the word.

    That said, those meetings tend to be the most informative, the most content-rich, let your hair down, tell it like it is, realistic discussions of all.  The discussions can be open, brainstorming, exploratory, pro and con, and interactively debate oriented and in the end all understand the rules of the venue.  They understand that just because an exec was talking out-of-the-box or notionally, that it wasn’t the gospel or set in concrete or offered as an attack bullseye.

    I can think of an issue (won’t state it here) that should be openly discussed and should be discussed in the press and public venues fully.  The press is trying hard to get it in to the spotlight, but everyone is totally clammed up, in every venue:  government, academia, industry, all are either subordinated, compromised, at-risk, contractually-muted, or fearful of being put in the spotlight.  No one wants to face the public stump-grinder, the human-publicity-shredder and all are highly allergic to an interview or press question.

    It would be nice if all discussions could be fully open and transparent, but I think there is good reason where certain discussions should be allowed to occur off-the-record so the principals are freed from certain bindings of thought, speech, and interaction, away from penalties and punishments that could result from substantive thinking and talking. 

    Just one perspective here.  Perhaps everyone else here thinks that public figures should have zero discussion-privacy (not-for-attribution) rights or moments.  If so, hey, attack away. 

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      We have seen with the candidates that leaders say thing to a private  audience and other things to a public audience.  You and I may not hear the contradictions but people in these meetings clearly see the contradictions when they compare the two together. So long as this private/public double talk continues our space policy is not going to run on all rails.

      • npng says:
        0
        0

        I couldn’t agree more Keith.  Although, to be accurate, what often occurs in private not-for-att discussions is that a number of paths, options, or alternatives are discussed, one of which will then be the one communicated to the public, or, that a concept will flow outward free from linkage to an individual, often as a ‘trial-balloon’ socialization test of the concept/approach.

        The process is vaguely (emphasis on vaguely) similar to the condition where a jury deliberates in private and then comes back publicly to communicate a verdict.  Having press cameras pointed at everyone – during jury deliberations – or injecting point and counterpoint as a juror openly discusses a given thought or his/her position prior to a collective decision is distracting and may come with risk or serve to distort the process.  

        Of course the counter to this is that the privacy and limitation of inputs that result from a select, non-public, small group size may starve the group of information and lead to a skewed or entirely incorrect decision.  The ‘select’ group may not be the most skilled, they may have hidden agendas or bias or somehow be an inappropriate group to forge a plan and make the best decision (which I would think would be strongly aligned to your point of how to properly ‘run on the rails’).

        This issue focuses on problems and defects that occur at the government ~to~ press/public/citizen interface.   There are similarly problemed government-to-government interfaces that prevail and that result in deficient communications, e.g.: interactions between congress and an agency head or the eop and an agency head, all of which are just as dysfunctional and crippling to our nation. At any rate, your point is well taken. 

      • objose says:
        0
        0

         I think that these two weeks, maybe no one should schedule meetings. Seriously, regardless of your political leanings, do you want some one from this administration saying much in public right before an election?  Charlie has no idea what is going to happen in two weeks so there is no way he can say anything.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      > Pencils down, no recorders, mum is the word. …
      > those meetings tend to be the most informative, the most content-
      > rich, let your hair down, tell it like it is, realistic discussions of all.

      So much for leaders leading the way, and followers following the leaders. If nobody knows what the plan or lead is, then may as well use tea leaf predictions.

      • npng says:
        0
        0

        I like your idealism Michael and could wish it would work in society, but it doesn’t.  Human behaviors impede your wish.   Competition, manipulation, hidden agendas, politics, power, absolute power, litigation, slander, libel, torts, laws, dominance, arrogance, betrayals, hypocrisy, criticism, unwarranted attacks, premature press exposure, good press, bad press, bad information, failure of reciprocity, unethical behavior, and a hundred other human ways and means ruin you idealistic vision from being a reality.  Toss in bad or evil external group threats and adverse actions.

        I’ll guess your vision might be preferring of a well honed, sensible military operation where there is a clear chain of command and where everyone is on the same team, highly synchronized and possessing instant communication and intel abilities.  Commanders command and soldiers follow and act.  All good stuff.  God bless our armed forces.  But in contrast, for a day in government…

        The reality may be thinly analogous to a football game with two teams (political parties) and a large crowd (of citizens) in the bleachers.  The two teams go in to huddles before each play and, no, they don’t share their plans with the opposite team or the viewers.  The bleacher bums can yell and scream, cheer and boo, but have little say or power to wield as to what the plays on the field will be.   Yes, at some point one of the teams usually win.  But do the viewers in the bleachers win?  Of course the problem with this analogy is – it’s flawed – since many of those in the bleachers ARE actively involved in plays on the field.  Too often, the primary players choose to ignore that fact and the result is chaos, confusion, and disorder.  So, you might want to skip the tea leaf activity and just pray. 

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Hey, I read this analogy someplace before, our govt is like a football game (really, there is no checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch. It is either trying to defeat the other team or making sure your QB, the president, doesn’t get sacked). Only two teams and those on the bleachers (voters) have influence but only in terms of cheering or booing their favorite player. However, only those few that actually play the game are the ones that know what the plays are.

  2. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I still can’t find any indication of what he said.