寻找冒烟的枪支:获取信息和公布约翰-肯尼迪遇刺记录

IF 0.8 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Amy Howard
{"title":"寻找冒烟的枪支:获取信息和公布约翰-肯尼迪遇刺记录","authors":"Amy Howard","doi":"10.1108/rmj-12-2023-0082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe records surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) have been subject to unique treatment in their management and opening. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Records Act) mandated that the records would be opened in full by 2017, unless there was intervention from the sitting president. This study aims to examine the extent to which access to the JFK assassination records has been granted. It evaluates how open the archive is, and the consequences of withholding government records. It examines how the continued non-disclosure of this archive has helped to fuel the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s death.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis research was approached as traditional historical document analysis, reviewing the JFK assassination records releases from 2017–2018 and the broader landscape of access to information in America. A random sampling of the open and redacted records was used to undertake a statistical analysis on the amount of information that has been withheld. It was supplemented with freedom of information requests intended to reveal further information on the approach taken to redaction. The work was situated within a broader global literature review.\n\n\nFindings\nThe research identified the limits to access to the JFK assassination records that exist because of the continued postponement and redaction of information by US federal government agencies. It found that the ambiguous language used for exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the JFK Records Act has allowed agencies the freedom to interpret and limit access to information if they desired. Furthermore, agencies have had the power to hold and sanitise their own records. The work identifies how these approaches have caused questions, inconsistences, a lack of transparency and accountability in the US government. The lack of centralised processes and related explanations can be seen to fuel further controversies and conspiracies.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nUsing a systematic research methodology, this work presents a careful analysis of the varying processes and their implications for understanding of the events that surrounded Kennedy’s assassination. Lessons learnt can be applied to the general management of freedom of information and access to information.\n","PeriodicalId":20923,"journal":{"name":"Records Management Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Searching for a smoking gun: access to information and release of the John F. Kennedy assassination records\",\"authors\":\"Amy Howard\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/rmj-12-2023-0082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe records surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) have been subject to unique treatment in their management and opening. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Records Act) mandated that the records would be opened in full by 2017, unless there was intervention from the sitting president. This study aims to examine the extent to which access to the JFK assassination records has been granted. It evaluates how open the archive is, and the consequences of withholding government records. It examines how the continued non-disclosure of this archive has helped to fuel the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s death.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis research was approached as traditional historical document analysis, reviewing the JFK assassination records releases from 2017–2018 and the broader landscape of access to information in America. A random sampling of the open and redacted records was used to undertake a statistical analysis on the amount of information that has been withheld. It was supplemented with freedom of information requests intended to reveal further information on the approach taken to redaction. The work was situated within a broader global literature review.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe research identified the limits to access to the JFK assassination records that exist because of the continued postponement and redaction of information by US federal government agencies. It found that the ambiguous language used for exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the JFK Records Act has allowed agencies the freedom to interpret and limit access to information if they desired. Furthermore, agencies have had the power to hold and sanitise their own records. The work identifies how these approaches have caused questions, inconsistences, a lack of transparency and accountability in the US government. The lack of centralised processes and related explanations can be seen to fuel further controversies and conspiracies.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nUsing a systematic research methodology, this work presents a careful analysis of the varying processes and their implications for understanding of the events that surrounded Kennedy’s assassination. Lessons learnt can be applied to the general management of freedom of information and access to information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":20923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Records Management Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Records Management Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-12-2023-0082\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Records Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-12-2023-0082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的与约翰-肯尼迪总统(JFK)遇刺有关的记录在管理和开放方面一直受到特殊对待。1992 年《约翰-肯尼迪遇刺记录收集法》(《肯尼迪记录法》)规定,除非现任总统干预,否则这些记录将在 2017 年之前全部开放。本研究旨在探讨肯尼迪遇刺档案的开放程度。它评估了档案的开放程度,以及隐瞒政府记录的后果。本研究采用传统的历史文献分析方法,回顾了 2017-2018 年肯尼迪遇刺记录的发布情况以及美国信息获取的更广泛情况。对公开和编辑过的记录进行随机抽样,对被隐瞒的信息量进行统计分析。此外,还提出了信息自由申请,以揭示有关编辑方法的更多信息。研究发现,由于美国联邦政府机构不断推迟和编辑信息,对肯尼迪暗杀档案的获取造成了限制。研究发现,美国《信息自由法》(FOIA)和《肯尼迪档案法》在豁免方面使用了模棱两可的措辞,这使得各机构可以随意解释和限制对信息的获取。此外,各机构还有权保存和消毒自己的记录。这项工作指出了这些方法是如何在美国政府中造成问题、不一致、缺乏透明度和问责制的。原创性/价值通过系统的研究方法,这部作品对围绕肯尼迪遇刺事件的不同过程及其对理解肯尼迪遇刺事件的影响进行了细致的分析。从中汲取的经验教训可用于信息自由和信息获取的一般管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Searching for a smoking gun: access to information and release of the John F. Kennedy assassination records
Purpose The records surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) have been subject to unique treatment in their management and opening. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Records Act) mandated that the records would be opened in full by 2017, unless there was intervention from the sitting president. This study aims to examine the extent to which access to the JFK assassination records has been granted. It evaluates how open the archive is, and the consequences of withholding government records. It examines how the continued non-disclosure of this archive has helped to fuel the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s death. Design/methodology/approach This research was approached as traditional historical document analysis, reviewing the JFK assassination records releases from 2017–2018 and the broader landscape of access to information in America. A random sampling of the open and redacted records was used to undertake a statistical analysis on the amount of information that has been withheld. It was supplemented with freedom of information requests intended to reveal further information on the approach taken to redaction. The work was situated within a broader global literature review. Findings The research identified the limits to access to the JFK assassination records that exist because of the continued postponement and redaction of information by US federal government agencies. It found that the ambiguous language used for exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the JFK Records Act has allowed agencies the freedom to interpret and limit access to information if they desired. Furthermore, agencies have had the power to hold and sanitise their own records. The work identifies how these approaches have caused questions, inconsistences, a lack of transparency and accountability in the US government. The lack of centralised processes and related explanations can be seen to fuel further controversies and conspiracies. Originality/value Using a systematic research methodology, this work presents a careful analysis of the varying processes and their implications for understanding of the events that surrounded Kennedy’s assassination. Lessons learnt can be applied to the general management of freedom of information and access to information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Records Management Journal
Records Management Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: ■Electronic records management ■Effect of government policies on record management ■Strategic developments in both the public and private sectors ■Systems design and implementation ■Models for records management ■Best practice, standards and guidelines ■Risk management and business continuity ■Performance measurement ■Continuing professional development ■Consortia and co-operation ■Marketing ■Preservation ■Legal and ethical issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信