The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Lawman]

Yes, I understand your point and I completely agree big tech, media et al. are way out of line. This is truly some dystopian  1984 shit. But it's a wild oversimplification to pretend that one side is solely responsible. 
 
I think you need to ask yourself why you're holding social media companies to higher standards of truth and transparency than the literal elected leader of the free world. Factual, responsible discourse should start with the president and serve as an example to everyone else.
If you elect a troll, don't get upset when they get banned. 

Are you F’ing kidding.

The media claims to be the arbitration element of governance but has basically given itself a pass on what they were doing a year ago.

This is there “we don’t have to apologize even though it was deliberate” message https://apple.news/AQ28_k7_pR46x8Kzjf89QOw

They didn’t care what or where this thing came from, just in preventing Trump from shifting the focus of all the negative out of it. It had nothing to do with the validity of intelligence (which hadn’t changed since some of us started reading the lab theory stuff all over SIPR around April of last year). The media had more than just Trump to look at and confirm of this theory had legs. All those anonymous sources for every other story apparently didn’t exist on this one subject.

It’s absolute proof they were in the bag for a particular side and came out and exercised every form of censorship and de-platforming anybody that didn’t tow the line. Meanwhile now it’s such a possibility Jon Stewart is free to joke about it on late night TV and it’s a god damned comedy trope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Are you F’ing kidding.

The media claims to be the arbitration element of governance but has basically given itself a pass on what they were doing a year ago.

This is there “we don’t have to apologize even though it was deliberate” message https://apple.news/AQ28_k7_pR46x8Kzjf89QOw

They didn’t care what or where this thing came from, just in preventing Trump from shifting the focus of all the negative out of it. It had nothing to do with the validity of intelligence (which hadn’t changed since some of us started reading the lab theory stuff all over SIPR around April of last year). The media had more than just Trump to look at and confirm of this theory had legs. All those anonymous sources for every other story apparently didn’t exist on this one subject.

It’s absolute proof they were in the bag for a particular side and came out and exercised every form of censorship and de-platforming anybody that didn’t tow the line. Meanwhile now it’s such a possibility Jon Stewart is free to joke about it on late night TV and it’s a god damned comedy trope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's almost like the president of the United States, who has the highest access to intelligence reports of any human being on earth, could have....... set the story straight. 
 

but instead we got: "it's not a big deal it'll go away soon OH WAIT actually it's a huge deal and probably a Chinese bioweapon OH WAIT take this hydroxychloroquine drug and shine a flashlight up your ass OH WAIT masking is a fundamental violation of your rights."

Again, for the one millionth time, of course the media is biased.  Of course they hated trump. And of course they wanted to do everything in their power to trash him.  But at a certain point even they are limited by the bounds of reality.  If trump came out and made responsible, cogent, fact-based points based on quality intelligence he had pertaining to the origins of the virus, that would be very difficult to discount.
 

Instead he spewed xenophobic, scientifically illiterate mixed messaging like the absolute clown that he is.  He is not a serious person, so stop complaining that he wasn't taken seriously.

 

[ViperMan]

Meh. On the point of the origination of the virus, it doesn't matter what Trump said, didn't say, implied, opined, or hypothesized. Presidents behaving in ridiculous ways, saying untrue things, and so on, is not new. Anyone alive knows this after watching at least Obama, Bush before him, and Clinton before him. And in the specific case of Trump, everyone knows he is not of particularly high fidelity. Hence, any equivocation between his bloviating about a lab-leak/bio-weapon/whatever, and the media's insistence that it was a natural occurrence is BS. The media is the entity known as the 4th estate - not the President - it is their job to remain as impartial as possible. This responsibility includes sometimes ignoring BS (i.e. a lot of what the President said) while they continue to ask pointed questions and follow reasonable lines of inquiry. If I had to debrief what the media did, I would call it task misprioritization and channelized attention. Going one step further - you can't even blame the media. We as aware citizens need to ask important questions and engage in dialogue that will help push the nation in the right direction.

Thaaaaat said, Jon Stewart did an awesome job highlighting the Bayesian logic we all use but are seldom conscious of - which is why the media's culpability is even more egregious since we all suspected something was up.

Facts: A novel corona virus first began infecting people in Wuhan, China. Also, a virus lab exists in Wuhan that has experienced previous viral leaks. Finally, researchers at this lab came down with disease manifesting symptoms consistent with those we now know COVID-19 causes.

Getting to the bottom of this requires evidence which may or may not be forthcoming. In absence of it, it is helpful to examine the situation from different perspectives.

1st Frame: What is the probability that a novel corona virus would arise randomly from nature and begin infecting people in Wuhan, China vs. any other place in the world? Very low.

2nd Frame: What is the probability that if a novel corona virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, that the first city where a breakout would occur is in Wuhan, China? Very high.

The "media" was intent on pushing the first frame, without evidence (beyond Trump said it), but examining the same question from a different perspective sheds light on what was and what is more likely.

[Prozac]

8 hours ago, Lawman said:

It’s absolute proof they were in the bag for a particular side and came out and exercised every form of censorship and de-platforming anybody that didn’t tow the line. Meanwhile now it’s such a possibility Jon Stewart is free to joke about it on late night TV and it’s a god damned comedy trope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Uhhh, who is “they”? Last time I checked, the guy with the highest rated evening “news” show was most definitely “in the bag for a particular side”. Just not the one that supports your narrative. Here’s a newsflash: no media source is impartial. Most media is garbage. A few sources are good. We live in a free country and that fact will probably never change. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Prozac
Formatting

[Lawman]

Uhhh, who is “they”? Last time I checked, the guy with the highest rated evening “news” show was most definitely “in the bag for a particular side”. Just not the one that supports your narrative. Here’s a newsflash: no media source is impartial. Most media is garbage. A few sources are good. We live in a free country and that fact will probably never change. 

The guy with the highest rated “cable news program” doesn’t sit in the White House press corps, doesn’t get briefings from the Secretary of State, doesn’t have dozens of upper echelon contacts from years of working in the field to use as a vetting source for the truth.

EVERY one of those dipsticks sat around and took the information not just from Trump but from Pompeo and other members of the administration and went “yeah it’s a conspiracy America, don’t listen to this, in fact we will turn it off for you.” Then the talking heads from whatever network they work for worked overtime to shut down any story involving the Wuhan lab when it came out of the mouths of people that receive Senate Intelligence briefings.

The media narrative has in one coordinated effort, killed any real chance of holding China accountable for their actions throughout this whole ordeal. And they did it because for them it was more important to blame Trump for it than to actually stop, examine, vet, and report the truth of the matter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

20 hours ago, Pooter said:

No. It does matter. The president of the United States cannot continuously spew garbage and then magically expect everyone to take him super duper serious when one tiny portion of what he's saying turns out to be true.  Trump is like a right wing idiot's Nostradamus. They think he's a genius and make constant excuses for him because he's right occasionally, while conveniently ignoring the mountain of chaff and nonsense.  
 

I agree that trump derangement syndrome is a thing and the media was looking for reasons to discount or oppose anything trump said.  But two things can be true at once. The media needs to uphold better journalistic standards and trump needed to uphold basic standards of truth and honesty as the president of the United States. 

Your fallacy here is that Trump was the original suppositor of the lab leak theory. He was not. If your measure for believing something is your political opposition to someone who repeats it, your filter is broken. Grown ups in media, politics, and science should be able to think about something even though someone they despise said it.

 

And I'm tired of people (you, sure, but lots and lots of people) saying that the problem with Trump is that he lied all the time.

No.

The problem is that he was a bitter narcissist. He treated people around him poorly. He was ill informed on things he should have known. 

 

Trump did not lie more than the rest of the politicians. To say so is to demonstrate an almost unfathomable ignorance or bias... Or both.

 

You probably can't even come up with a Trump lie that was unique to him as a president. Lying is not their job, it's just how they get it. 

[Negatory]

There’s a lot of complaining here about liberal media not putting credence to potential lab leak theories. I agree with that assessment, but it’s not even close to a pure liberal media issue.

You guys lose your credibility when you fail to point out that Fox/OAN did the exact same thing by blindly supporting bogus claims. How many times was the virus a hoax on Fox? How many times was it going to be no worse than the flu on Fox? How many times was hydroxychloriquine touted as a miracle cure on Fox?

Unfortunately, there comes a point where you have to place credibility in one source and disregard others. There is not enough time in the day to sift through every assertion from both sides, and most people take the easy route: they trust one network or group more.

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

On the point of the origination of the virus, it doesn't matter what Trump said, didn't say, implied, opined, or hypothesized.

Yes it does. This is a ridiculous assertion. GWB lying about WMDs, Clinton lying about BJs, Obama lying about tax cuts - they all are bad and matter. Trump being a terrible leader is a large reason why Jan 6 happened and why the nations Covid response was so stupid.

Words mean things. Words from political leaders mean more. To assert otherwise is absurd.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Negatory

[kaputt]

12 hours ago, Pooter said:

 

Instead he spewed xenophobic, scientifically illiterate mixed messaging like the absolute clown that he is.  He is not a serious person, so stop complaining that he wasn't taken seriously.

 

Dude, I’m sorry, but your whole post is evidence that your entire justification for the silencing of legitimate discussion of COVID origins is based on your own personal views on Trump. You couldn’t even help yourself. Sadly the entire media, tech, and to some extent Democrat complex felt the same way. 
 

Not a single person in here was complaining that Trump wasn’t taken seriously, or even defending him. The problem is that rational discussion was silenced due to a hatred of Trump; so much so that not even common sense minded, middle of the road individuals could mention the possibility of a lab leak without risking being canceled, banned, called a racist, etc…

Just re-read your post man. You even included “Xenaphobic” like you’re still reading from sort of April 2020 playbook.
 

 

[Negatory]

On a side note, how do you have rational discussion about origination of a virus when you’re spending the majority of your time convincing 50% of Americans that the virus is even real or is killing people? Misinformation hurts productive discourse, that much we can agree on. 

[kaputt]

11 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Misinformation hurts productive discourse, that much we can agree on. 

The silencing of discourse is what hurts productive discourse.

[Lord Ratner]

47 minutes ago, Negatory said:

There’s a lot of complaining here about liberal media not putting credence to potential lab leak theories. I agree with that assessment, but it’s not even close to a pure liberal media issue.

You guys lose your credibility when you fail to point out that Fox/OAN did the exact same thing by blindly supporting bogus claims. How many times was the virus a hoax on Fox? How many times was it going to be no worse than the flu on Fox? How many times was hydroxychloriquine touted as a miracle cure on Fox?

Unfortunately, there comes a point where you have to place credibility in one source and disregard others. There is not enough time in the day to sift through every assertion from both sides, and most people take the easy route: they trust one network or group more.

Yes it does. This is a ridiculous assertion. GWB lying about WMDs, Clinton lying about BJs, Obama lying about tax cuts - they all are bad and matter. Trump being a terrible leader is a large reason why Jan 6 happened and why the nations Covid response was so stupid.

Words mean things. Words from political leaders mean more. To assert otherwise is absurd.

You have to define Hoax. The final numbers show COVID-19 as somewhere around 3x as fatal as the flu. And if you're not a senior citizen, pretty much the same threat as the flu. But once upon a time, against the evidence, 3.6% fatality rate was floated. Then there was the transition from reporting fatalities pre-race-riots to new cases post-race-riots. Or the sudden lack of concern for outside congregation when the protests kicked off in June, but don't you dare go to the beach, even though we already knew that outdoor spread was not a threat. Or the masks on masks off debacles. Wear a bandana over your mouth or you hate grandma, even though opening windows would be way more effective. How many times did a random 20-something year old die of COVID make national news, but with no presentation of the statistical likelihood of dying from COVID at that age (virtually zero)? Or what about the whole "you're vaccinated but still need to social distance" nonsense. So yeah, hoax has many applications. I don't recall many serious voices on either side calling the virus fake. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, kaputt said:

The silencing of discourse is what hurts productive discourse.

Exactly. We have the first amendment because the first thing authoritarians do with discourse they don't like is deem it "misinformation."

 

Yet even now as the same players who fought *hard* to silence anyone who voiced the lab-leak theory admit there is something valid there, they are curiously silent on the idea that silencing voices you believe to be incorrect was a bad idea.

 

I can't wait for the same awkward shuffling and changing of subject over global warming. An entire industry of "experts" addicted to government grants told us the world would be literally doomed if we didn't follow their edicts within a few years, and for decades their models and predictions failed while the theory adapted to the very data that disproved it. 

 

You should trust experts for an explanation of what something *is*

 

But there is no such thing as an expert on what you (we) should *do*

Edited June 17, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

Last time I checked, the guy with the highest rated evening “news” show was most definitely “in the bag for a particular side”. Just not the one that supports your narrative. Here’s a newsflash: no media source is impartial.

The point is that CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/WaPo and their pundits are all taken as "legitimate" news sources; no one is confused or doubts that Tucker Carlson provides "news with perspective" or that he happens to have the #1 rated show. Juxtapose this with the fact that most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased, and what's more, they wear the equivalent of "blue check marks" in the news business - they are considered un-opinionated and non-political. How do I know this? No one openly scoffs them. People do openly scoff Tucker.

It is the sum total of the above phalanx that has a far, far greater effect on what the nation is aware of and thus who gets to determine the framing of issues in the country than does the Tucker gadfly (and hence the fact that he as an individual happens to have a larger audience is irrelevant).

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Yes it does. This is a ridiculous assertion. GWB lying about WMDs, Clinton lying about BJs, Obama lying about tax cuts - they all are bad and matter. Trump being a terrible leader is a large reason why Jan 6 happened and why the nations Covid response was so stupid.

Well, you missed my point. The point is not that what the President says doesn't matter. Remember, GWB had numerous detractors (including me when I was less than a 2nd Lt); Clinton was impeached for lies about BJs; Obama lost a democratic majority extremely rapidly. So you're right, all those issues (and the lies told around them) matter, and in each of those cases there was vigorous and spirited debate that took place around them.

What is novel about the lab-leak theory, and what makes it stand apart from those you listed, is the concerted, direct, and coordinated effort by the media establishment to dismiss the theory outright - without evidence - because it was supported by Trump. There was no debate. That's the point.

[Prozac]

24 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

The point is that CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/WaPo and their pundits are all taken as "legitimate" news sources; no one is confused or doubts that Tucker Carlson provides "news with perspective" or that he happens to have the #1 rated show. Juxtapose this with the fact that most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased, and what's more, they wear the equivalent of "blue check marks" in the news business - they are considered un-opinionated and non-political. How do I know this? No one openly scoffs them. People do openly scoff Tucker.

It is the sum total of the above phalanx that has a far, far greater effect on what the nation is aware of and thus who gets to determine the framing of issues in the country than does the Tucker gadfly (and hence the fact that he as an individual happens to have a larger audience is irrelevant).

I hear a TON of people on the right openly scoffing Acosta, Lemon and the like, ALL THE TIME. In many cases, rightfully so. It’s funny, but somehow people can see the bias of the pundits that they disagree with, but tend to defend the ones they agree with. The truth is that “news” hosts on all matter of televised (and internet-ized) media make a shit ton of money for themselves and their networks by keeping you (the royal you) outraged. They will spew all manner of bullshit in the name of fresh content. People have ingested so much of this garbage, for so long, that a good chunk of our country literally thinks of the opposing viewpoint as the enemy and is ready to take up arms against their countrymen. Guess who is benefiting from all of this unrest? Hint: it ain’t U.S. and A.

[ViperMan]

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I hear a TON of people on the right openly scoffing Acosta, Lemon and the like

 

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

That’s kinda my point: people on the right scoff Lemon. People on the left scoff Carlson. Nobody wants to admit/ can’t see that their guy is as shitty as the rest of ‘em. 

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

That’s kinda my point: people on the right scoff Lemon. People on the left scoff Carlson. Nobody wants to admit/ can’t see that their guy is as shitty as the rest of ‘em. 

Right. You're announcing that people on the L scoff Tucker and people on the R scoff Lemon - no one disputes that, and it wasn't part of my argument even though you're responding to it as though it was.

The group of people I'm talking about are those in the "middle" who generally consider themselves disengaged from the world of politics, but who may get brought in to varying degrees depending on what's going on around them (different from those who know they are on the L or R). These are the "most" people (who I was careful to not distinguish by labeling them as R or L) I'm talking about when I quote myself:

15 hours ago, ViperMan said:

most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased...

I'm pointing out that the biased group of people I list above carry a special cloak in relation to the "most" group I'm distinguishing: they work for "legitimate" news sources (CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/WaPo) and thus they are not approached with the same suspicion that Tucker Carlson is (by most - not just those on the L). That's the core reason they wield more power than the Tuckers - because they aren't judged as L leaning by most in the same way most can distinguish Tucker as R leaning. They get the benefit of the doubt that being approached by someone looking for "straight news" comes to them with.

The net effect is that the mainstream media is L biased, but most people don't see it as so. The dangerous consequence of this is seen by the legacy media establishment's ability to dismiss, outright, a credible hypothesis about the origins of COVID. I would compare and contrast this with the whataboutism that is the discussion surrounding Fox news' "pushing" of Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, or whatever else - the national discussion about prevention/cures didn't shift based on what Fox news was talking about. The national discussion on the origins of COVID did shift based on what CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/WaPo were pushing.

A simple way for you to tell what group you're a part of: do you consider the group of people I listed above to be as L leaning as Tucker is R leaning?

[Prozac]

I think you’d have a good point if this was 20 years ago. I honestly don’t think there are that many people in the middle anymore. Certainly not most people. We’ve done a fantastic job of sorting ourselves into our respective tribes and anyone who doesn’t buy in fully isn’t one of “us”.  I’m not leveling this argument at you personally btw. I think the discussion here is far more civil and open than in other circles (ahem…airline cockpits). But for most people (there’s that term again), sorting one’s self into tribe x and buying most, if not all of what their selling, bullshit or otherwise, seems to be the easiest choice. Neither side has a monopoly on this phenomenon. 
 

Now to address the second part of your post WRT COVID-19 origins. Yes, the “mainstream” media absolutely did the American people a disservice by not covering/dismissing  what turned out to be a legitimate story. However, comma… I haven’t exactly kept my feelings for DJT a secret here, so what I’m about to say next probably won’t be a surprise. I absolutely believe that this is an excellent example as to why you don’t want someone like him as president. When so much of what comes out of his mouth is poorly thought out drivel, lies, bombast, xenophobia, middle school level insults and the like, it gets hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Apparently there were likely a few good ideas and truthful statements that came out of the man’s mouth. It was easy for a lot of the country to miss. 

[brickhistory]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-stelter-asks-jen-psaki-what-the-media-gets-wrong-in-covering-biden/

 

“Busy summer ahead, infrastructure, election reform,” Stelter began. “What does the press get wrong when covering Biden’s agenda?”

[arg]

The way some news shows are swooning over the newly elected president speaks volumes.

[Prozac]

12 hours ago, arg said:

The way some news shows are swooning over the newly elected president speaks volumes.

You mean like some news outlets swooned over Trump?

C’mon guys. Yeah, the coverage is biased. But I don’t buy this “it’s all stacked against conservatives” bullshit. The conservative media has plenty of power. Maybe more than the liberal side. Tucker and the like have been apologists for, and are complicit in the armed insurrection of the Capitol of the United States for gods sake. 

[brabus]

The fact you refer to it by the MSM’s label of “armed insurrection” shows bias. Absolutely there were people present who were out of control and did illegal/stupid shit, and this isn’t an apology for that group. Fuck them. But, have you actually talked to people who were there? It was 99% peaceful, and not remotely the event that has been portrayed. Again, yes some crazy assholes did some dumb shit (e.g. forcing their way in), but the preponderance of the crowd did not. Your mind, and much of America’s, was made up based on the words of journalists sitting 1000s of miles away from the actual event slamming away on a keyboard. Fear and hyperbole sells. 
 

However, I do agree with you bias and corruption is rampant across the entire media, from the left to the right. Defending either “side” is disingenuous. 

[DosXX]

On 6/18/2021 at 10:20 AM, ViperMan said:

The net effect is that the mainstream media is L biased, but most people don't see it as so.

4 years of "CNN is fake news" and people still argue there's a huge perception gap with the public that doesn't exist.

Edited June 19, 2021 by DosXX

[Springer]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/22/military-has-watchdog-stopping-extremism-now-it-wants-teeth-and-independence.html?ESRC=eb_210623.nl

The Military Has a Watchdog for Stopping Extremism. Now, It Wants Teeth -- and Independence

 

In this Jan. 6, 2021 photo, protesters try to break through a police barrier at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

22 Jun 2021

Military.com | By Stephen Losey

The Defense Department's Office of Inspector General is asking Congress to take steps to empower its new deputy IG in charge of rooting out extremism in the ranks, and secure its independence.

The Pentagon's deputy inspector general for diversity and inclusion and extremism in the military was established by the National Defense Authorization Act that took effect Jan. 1. It is in charge of conducting audits and investigations into supremacist and criminal gang activity in the armed forces.

Advertisement

 

In a report to Congress released last week, the IG's office said that it is already working on projects that directly cover those areas, such as evaluating the Pentagon's efforts to address extremism, diversity and inclusion programs, and sexual assault at the Naval Academy.

Read Next: After Capitol Riot Indictment, Marine Major Remains at His Quantico Job

And the IG has its eyes set on more projects it could work on beginning next year, such as auditing how well military entrance processing stations identify supremacist, extremist or gang member recruits. But if the office doesn't get more resources, it said, it won't be able to get all of those projects done.

The IG said it needs more funding starting in fiscal 2022 to hire 80 more employees over a two-year period, as well as additional facilities, equipment and operational expenses, to work on diversity, inclusion and extremism. The Office of Personnel Management also gave the IG permission to hire three more Senior Executive Service members, including the new deputy IG.

The hiring will start this year with a dozen new staff members, paid for with money already in the budget, to stand up the office and lay the groundwork for its mission. If the IG gets the rest of its funding in 2022, it will hire the rest of the core staff then.

The Pentagon's IG also needs money to speed up the deployment of an investigations case management system to other IGs throughout the military, the report said. The Pentagon and the IG must develop new ways to track and report extremist, supremacist and criminal gang activity by service members, it added.

But the IG cautioned that Section 554 of the NDAA, as it is currently written, has provisions that "significantly challenge" the office's independence and should be changed.

The IG's office said the section of the law giving Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin the power to appoint and assign duties to the deputy IG, and having the deputy IG report to him, is particularly problematic.

As written, the deputy IG would be "required to simultaneously serve two leaders with distinct and often divergent interests," the IG's report said. "In practical effect, the deputy inspector general is a DoD employee detailed to duties in the DoD OIG, which undermines the independence of the DoD OIG from the DoD and the secretary of Defense in fact and appearance."

This could undermine the new deputy IG before it even gets started, according to the report. If complainants don't believe their concerns will go to an independent, objective organization, they might not come forward with reports of extremist, supremacist or criminal gang activity in the military, it explained.

The IG also said the NDAA has redundant reporting requirements that compromise the office's independence. Section 554 of the NDAA requires the new deputy IG -- not the Defense Department's IG -- to submit semiannual reports to the secretary of defense and the IG.

But the deputy IG also is required to submit annual reports to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, as well as other additional reports when directed by the SecDef or the IG.

The defense secretary's authority to direct the deputy IG to write reports puts the office's independence at risk, the IG wrote.

For now, a temporary fix appears to have been found. Austin agreed to delegate power to appoint the new deputy to the Pentagon IG, and clarified that the deputy will be a member of the defense IG's leadership team.

But the IG said it is still possible -- albeit unlikely -- that a future SecDef could rescind that delegation and reclaim power to appoint the deputy.

The IG said it has worked with lawmakers' staff and the DoD Office of Legislative Affairs to propose an amendment to the law that fixes the independence issues, clarifies roles and responsibilities, and clears up the redundant reporting requirements.