Is it bad when a US agency tells the press, "Beyond that I would discourage further speculation of any sort"?

Question

"Not knowing the circumstances, I don't know whether it's good, bad or indifferent." - IAEM official

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_us/national_hurricane_center;_ylt=AggFNxjJNIR.bILhM9qiJ6ADW7oF

Answer 1

It is an interesting choice of words. But I would venture that since it involved personnel action he was only permitted to comment within a limited scope.

In other circumstances it could be evasion, or even bullying of the media. But in this circumstance I think he was just covering his behind or just didn't want to say "I'm not allowed to comment further."

Answer 2

Maybe.

Sometimes, speculation in the absence of any facts is just gossip-mongering, and rarely leads to anything productive.

However, speculation in the face of available facts will occur regardless of whether the govt tells people not to.

Answer 3

Maybe or maybe not.

Sometimes it means "shut up you idiot you are helping the bad person put together information we don't want them to have." By bad person I mean criminal, opposing side in a war or whatever.

Sometimes it means "stop the gossip, you freaking people out unnecessarily."

Sometimes it means "I've been ordered not to talk about this."

Answer 4

I prefer the lack of speculation myself....