The U.S. government time and again produces public large dense reports that describe specific phenomena in excruciating detail for someone not in the legal or lobbying profession. Every single report that I linked has been the subject of intense controversy, cherry picking, and doubt by people even in the highest levels of government. From a FOIA standpoint, I can understand why these reports are made public; because it must be a public resource for problems to potentially be addressed.
However, there are several hurdles that prevent these documents from being digestible from anyone other than people in the relevant expert professions:
- The dense language in each report leaves people prone to misinterpreting the meaning of certain words.
- The length of each report makes it difficult for the average busy American adult to fully read it, let a lone digest the content.
- If the public considers a government authority to be untrustworthy, how will each report even be trusted, let alone interpreted correctly or completely read? (From the executive point of view, I know that IGs and Special Counsels are there own separate authorities, but not everyone understands that nuance).
With these hurdles, large reports can quickly be muddied and their meaning lost through the reasons I mentioned above, thus preventing people from making an accurate conclusion (from the author's point of view) from reading each report, let alone doing something about it. Hence my question...
Why make such large investigative reports when there are numerous hurdles preventing the general non-expert audience from understanding what the author wrote?