Originally posted by Jack White: Are you concerned with the ethics of this particular story because the Pentagon apparently played a role in putting it out there?
I took a re-read of the story at issue here and don't really see it as all that compromising...
I guess, though generally, in situations like this, I don't feel that just because newspapers can publish something because they are constitutionally permitted to do so, I don't always think they should publish...
jag
quote:
We should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 1336 | Location: Moving in December | Registered: September 15, 2006
I guess, though generally, in situations like this, I don't feel that just because newspapers can publish something because they are constitutionally permitted to do so, I don't always think they should publish...
I think most of the mainstream press in this country agrees with that, Jag. Most editors and publishers of major papers can tell you about instances in which they've been asked to withhold information -- or even an entire story -- for national security or troop safety reasons and they've willingly complied.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4022 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
You have to pay more attention to the by-line, people -- Seymour Hersh. He writes this kind of stuff a few times a year. It is almost always highly speculative, uses a lot of unnamed sources . . .
I don't personally put much stock into his work, but it always receives attention.
______________________________ It's stay away from Malaysia for fear of vampires year!
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies 'something not desirable'." -- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
High Post Count = Manliness and Importance
#2 Most Friendly Guy, Connoisseur of All Things Fine, Elitist Ass, and One of the Two Biggest Douchebags in the Forums
You have to pay more attention to the by-line, people -- Seymour Hersh.
Hersh's byline isn't on this article, Cori ... it's credited to Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4022 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Originally posted by V.O.:If this leaked to media, I can see 2 options:
1. Pentagon allowed leakage, for reasons we don't know and probably would never know.
2. They did a bad job protecting this info. It is not journalist's fault, but his job to get and report whatever info. If the military didn't want it to go public, then it's their fault that it did. Then probably it was poorly planned/organized anyway, and needs to be fixed.
Precisely. Well said.
QM Quality does not occur by chance. It is the result of intelligent activities.
Posts: 7977 | Location: Cigar land | Registered: March 10, 2003
1. Pentagon allowed leakage, for reasons we don't know and probably would never know.
There's an option on your option #1, which I think is correct. I think in this case, the Pentagon didn't just "allow leakage" (a time-honored practice), they picked up the phone, called the Times and actively and in full view put it out there.
"Hey, we have this plan to root out AQ in Pakistan, but we're being unnecessarily delayed by politics in implementing it!"
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4022 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
