On December 8, the underground pipeline of Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, suddenly burst, spraying a large amount of black liquid, thick smoke billowing from the scene, and rubble all over the ground. At that time, a citizen called 12345** to inquire about the situation, and the reply was, "This is private and cannot be disclosed for the time being." ”
The latest news is that the reporter dialed 12345 again on December 10, and a connection team leader told the reporter that there was a misunderstanding in this matter, which was caused by the operator's lack of experience. "In fact, the operator did not say that privacy could not be disclosed in response to the problem (of the pipe burst), but wanted to express that the problem reported by the customer was inconvenient to disclose. The team leader told reporters that the operator thought that the other party's consultation involved the privacy of a citizen, so he made the previous reply. (December 11, New Yellow River).
If it is indeed the operator's "lack of experience that causes misunderstanding", the problem is not very big, unfortunately, the matter of "underground pipe explosion is private" is more and more black by the operator's leadership.
The leader said that the reply of "belonging to privacy", "the operator actually did not say that privacy cannot be disclosed in response to the problem of (pipe bursting), but wanted to express that the problem reflected by the service user is inconvenient to disclose";But what the citizens are asking about the burst of the pipeline - a large amount of black liquid is sprayed, the scene is full of thick smoke and rubble, what happened?The operator in question replied "not for (the pipe burst)", whether the operator "answered the question differently" and "talked about him left and right", or was he distracted and absent-minded, or what was going on, shouldn't he give an explanation?
The leader of the team leader said that at that time, the operator "wanted to express that the problems reported by the service users were inconvenient to disclose". And this confuses people again: who is the "service object" mentioned here, is it asking about the service object of the pipeline explosion incident, or is it a service object that reflects other demands?
The operator thought that the other party's consultation involved the privacy of a certain citizen", and the team leader's explanation made people more and more confused: What does the explosion of the inquiry pipeline have to do with "a citizen's privacy problem"?Where is this?
There is a serious suspicion that the local 12345** has a "public service accident" in the service of replying to the citizens, and this "accident" is much more serious than the burst of the pipeline.
The sudden explosion of urban underground pipelines is a public utility accident, and this kind of accident, whether it is a natural disaster or a man-made disaster, has a "bad relationship" with "privacy". Taking a step back, even if the information related to the accident is temporarily inconvenient to disclose, it can only be said to be a "public secret", and the concept of privacy is a private secret.
Logically speaking, for a public utility accident that is closely related to the interests of the public, it is necessary for the public to understand the inside story as soon as possibleFrom the perspective of jurisprudence and public ethics, the public has the right to know the truth about public events. To put it more simply, the sooner the official releases the facts about a sudden and panic-prone event, the better it will be for social stability, and the worse it may lead to "secondary disasters", such as the spread of rumors and the spread of panic.
In the impression of the public, 12345** is more down-to-earth and close to the people than any department in terms of service functions, and it stands to reason that in emergencies and when citizens are confused, ** should take on the responsibility of providing timely information for the citizens and appeasing the emotions of the people, rather than using a cold sentence of "can not disclose" to send the citizens.
The most unacceptable thing is not the coldness of "cannot be disclosed", but the nonsense of "belonging to privacy". What's even more than this is the increasingly black "not for (pipe bursting)" reply. It makes people anxious: Is it so difficult to explain the problem clearly or admit the mistake to the citizens?Is it so difficult to face the problem head-on without turning around?
There is another thing, which cannot but be called true: "The pipe explosion belongs to privacy" After the "stalk" fermented on the Internet, the local relevant departments said in an interview with ** that "according to preliminary understanding, the recording may be incomplete and taken out of context".
The recording is obviously incomplete, but the situation of "taking it out of context" does not exist - the team leader of 12345 has admitted that there was a "misunderstanding", admitting that "the operator is not unskilled enough, inexperienced, or misunderstanding of the wiring process, etc., resulting in improper responses." 12345 apologizes for this......”
Perhaps it should be said that the official suspicion that the recording was taken out of context also "proves" the absurdity of "the explosion of the pipeline" from one side. But in any case, when the facts are not clear, it is irresponsible to say "there may be a quote out of context" as soon as you come up.
This also reminds some localities and departments that in the face of supervision, they should first show their sincerity in accepting supervision, instead of being displeased when they have heard it, and they are accustomed to dealing with it in the way of "washing the floor".