It has been my experience that anything done by government usually exists in the planning stages for at least five years before it is implemented.
That's five years of public money spent to plan around various scenarios to derive a final policy based on whatever outcry initial release elicits from the paying public.
It is a fine line that exists between service and leadership.
Many of the decisions of government are not made by the elected officials, rather it is the product of study that results in public policy usually at the department level.
Civil servants investigate or cause to be investigated various issues relating to the smooth operation of public institutions into an uncharted future based on expected and historical conditions.
Even as the libertarian ideals that have grown in the past two and a half centuries have made a good portion of this operation transparent, and that the system itself continues to work toward openness, there still exists the problem of public advocacy on issues not directly related to trade and industry. It is the failure of mainstream media to capture the lagging attention of the public on issues that are mere tributaries to the confluence of ideology asserted in action.
These early nodal points of public policy formation are more often identified within the discipline to which they may apply when implemented and are usually tagged with some sort of economic advancement for the monitoring agency. Trade publications are one manifestation of this need to monitor developments at a low level.
The mainstream press can not bring all the issues and early developments to all the people all the time. The office of the ombudsman is less likely to serve the public on public policy development than a not-for-profit consumer advocacy agency. The public is not as well funded as industry to monitor government as monies collected from the public by government aid in the motions of government and not in the mechanisms tailoring and ensuring the voracity of its platforms.
The mainstream amplifies ambiguity by treating only the symptoms of public policy implementation and not the incremental input the process of deriving public policy needs to power its maturity.
Who but a politician has the time to ask the flood of questions required by the system of government it must then answer with public policy?
Moral ambiguity is present in the mainstream treatment of public policy. As a general rule judgements with respect to slant rarely branch into the root causes of events, instead concentrating on impact and effect as if to affect closure by stimulating public response for regulatory order.
This is the reactionary dilemma of the mainstream.
No comments:
Post a Comment