As I watched the “news” last evening (that in quotes because it was about half MSNBC and the other half Fox) I heard a world of facts – and a universe of opinions – and throughout I was like, “I don’t get this.”
Tell me the story about what happened in Cleveland (or Benghazi or NSA) and my comprehension of that situation will skyrocket.
A story is about a person who . . .
So the story I want is about someone who was in that IRS office (Rusty Gatekeeper). His “ordinary world” wasn’t OK (he was swamped with tax exemption requests) and so he made a decision (“I need some way to sort/prioritize these requests”). He was nervous about it, so he talked to a colleague he thought he could trust (Emily Confidante) and she said “Do it!” and so then, . . .
Enter the Senate and House “investigative committees.” They’re here to probe an incredibly complex situation. And how do they proceed?
They go for fact-finding. They call Rusty to testify and each committee member gets a turn at asking him specific questions. And what do they get?
They get facts: non-linear, sometimes contradictory, often incidental facts.
They haven’t a framework for making sense of the facts, so they call for more. “We’re going to get to the bottom of this,” the committee members cry, and they call Emily to testify. And what do they get?
More facts: more non-linear, often contradictory, frequently incidental facts. And rather than clarifying the situation, the new testimony has made it cloudier.
And one last note before I wrap up. Just a second ago I got an email from Fidelity with the subject line, “Are you asking the right questions?”
Any of you, dear readers, want to suggest that the gods don’t think this issue is timely?
Tomorrow a story. I’ll tell a story, since nobody involved with this seems interested in that approach.
Tell me the story about what happened in Cleveland (or Benghazi or NSA) and my comprehension of that situation will skyrocket.
A story is about a person who . . .
So the story I want is about someone who was in that IRS office (Rusty Gatekeeper). His “ordinary world” wasn’t OK (he was swamped with tax exemption requests) and so he made a decision (“I need some way to sort/prioritize these requests”). He was nervous about it, so he talked to a colleague he thought he could trust (Emily Confidante) and she said “Do it!” and so then, . . .
Enter the Senate and House “investigative committees.” They’re here to probe an incredibly complex situation. And how do they proceed?
They go for fact-finding. They call Rusty to testify and each committee member gets a turn at asking him specific questions. And what do they get?
They get facts: non-linear, sometimes contradictory, often incidental facts.
They haven’t a framework for making sense of the facts, so they call for more. “We’re going to get to the bottom of this,” the committee members cry, and they call Emily to testify. And what do they get?
More facts: more non-linear, often contradictory, frequently incidental facts. And rather than clarifying the situation, the new testimony has made it cloudier.
And one last note before I wrap up. Just a second ago I got an email from Fidelity with the subject line, “Are you asking the right questions?”
Any of you, dear readers, want to suggest that the gods don’t think this issue is timely?
Tomorrow a story. I’ll tell a story, since nobody involved with this seems interested in that approach.
RSS Feed