NY Times blabs again

[nittany03]

A setup which seemed, rational, thought out, and properly ORMed . . .

So naturally, the damned reporters have to blab about it to boost circulation a tenth of a percent.

 

[squorch2]

Yeah, that damn free press...

 

[Redux]

Yeah, that damn free press...

So you think the NYT should have an office at NSA, Oval Office or CIA? Shit, why not a wardroom briefing? :icon_roll

 

[nittany03]

Yeah, that damn free press...

This certainly doesn't rise to the level of Nixonian malfeasance. Having the right to do a thing is not the same as being right in doing it. And enough reporters get off on trying to be the next Woodward or Bernstein that IMHO, they often just end up jumping at shadows. There is not enough newsworthy action going on in the world to justify an 24-hour news cycle.

The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck.

 

[PropStop]

Sometimes a government must do things to ensure the safety of its people that cannot tolerate the light of day.

 

[armada1651]

I don't find this as shocking as the Times does apparently. I mean, given the stuff we're doing in the public eye, you've got to assume we're also doing sneakier, less legal stuff that's going unreported. That's what the CIA does.

 

[squorch2]

So you think the NYT should have an office at NSA, Oval Office or CIA? Shit, why not a wardroom briefing? :icon_roll

Nice straw man you have there.

No, this is a result of leaks from "senior administration officials," not because the NYT went and sat in on briefings or have a TOP SEKRIT office in Langley.

This certainly doesn't rise to the level of Nixonian malfeasance.

Your statement seems to imply that because something is less wrong than another obvious wrong it doesn't "rise to the level" of being reportable - is that right? And if so, who determines the level at which you can/should report classified information?

 

[Flash]

A setup which seemed, rational, thought out, and properly ORMed . . .

So naturally, the damned reporters have to blab about it to boost circulation a tenth of a percent.

Sometimes a government must do things to ensure the safety of its people that cannot tolerate the light of day.

You are all assuming that the current Administration did not want this to see the light of day, it may be an incorrect assumption. Did you ever think that the timing was pretty interesting, right after a presidential election? Not only that, the raid into Syria (as Squorch mentioned) and a recent series of 'explosions' in the border region of Pakistan has certainly heightened interest in our activities in those areas. Any reporter worth anything will want to see if this is part of some new American strategy, an expansion of current efforts or if it has anything to do with the recent election.

You are also making an assumption that the New York Times and other news organizations do not filter what they report. They have held back on stories when specifically requested in the past and even when they haven't they have held back parts that they felt were damaging to national security.

So get off your high horses and open your eyes a little bit. Knobbzy is right that it is a bit of a game, sometimes there is a lot more to things like this than you realize.

 

[JIMC5499]

You are also making an assumption that the New York Times and other news organizations do not filter what they report. They have held back on stories when specifically requested in the past and even when they haven't they have held back parts that they felt were damaging to national security.

I don't know about this. All I remember is the NYT reporter several years ago who said that if he had found out the specifics of the D-Day invasion in May of 1944 he would have written the story, no matter how many lives it cost. There was also an editor who said that he would have printed that story.

These days journalism and ethics seem to be an oxymoron.

 

[squorch2]

I don't know about this. All I remember is the NYT reporter several years ago who said that if he had found out the specifics of the D-Day invasion in May of 1944 he would have written the story, no matter how many lives it cost. There was also an editor who said that he would have printed that story.

These days journalism and ethics seem to be an oxymoron.

So I found a comment on this article that somewhat fits what you're talking about, but I can't find a primary source... link?

 

[Flash]

I don't know about this. All I remember is the NYT reporter several years ago who said that if he had found out the specifics of the D-Day invasion in May of 1944 he would have written the story, no matter how many lives it cost. There was also an editor who said that he would have printed that story.

These days journalism and ethics seem to be an oxymoron.

When the current administration objected to the story on the secret prison system that the New York Times was going to run, they agreed to keep the names of the country's involved in Europe out of it. And there was also the example in the story that Squorch cited, delaying a story for over a year.

As for your claim, I too would like to see a primary source.

 

[A4sForever]

....Yes, there are many things that go on that would shock even those seasoned fliers here .... what was originally a nice little op becomes a resume builder for people who fly around at 40K feet and have never seen a bad-guy face-to-face. Unfortunately said thin-air sniffers are the ones who call the shots, and they do what is best for their career.....Period. The end.

What the fuck do YOU know about any of us "seasoned fliers here", what "shocks" us, what we "do", what we've "done", whether or not we've "faced the elephant", and/or "what is best for (our) career" .... "Period". "The end".

Fucking Boot.

 

[A4sForever]

Well, duh, I know everything.

The point being that few people ever get a complete picture, and some of this gentleman's game that goes on is never seen in it's entirety. So, yes, I would assume that if some of us sat down and compared notes of one particular event and our involvement -- we would be both be surprised.

It's a two-way street, if you don't want me to assume anything about you, it would be hypocritical for you not to extend the same courtesy to me.

No, your point was those who are "seasoned fliers" (we call 'em Aviators, by the way) "who fly around at 40K feet and have never seen a bad-guy face-to-face" would be "shocked" and are just "building resumes" ... THAT was your point. As in you have the answers, "fliers" don't ... Or perhaps we should we just discard whatever you SAY and just wait for you to tell us what you meant ... ??

Here's something you can "assume" about me. I've been there/done some things, and you're a fucking boot on this forum. Don't come on here w/ post #3 or #4 and tell us "seasoned fliers" (sic) what we know or what we don't know about anything ... to use your words: Period. The end.

I don't "extend courtesy" to Boots on this forum unless they have "done something" -- you don't get respect until you earn it, get it???

Fucking Boots ..

 

[A4sForever]

Well I guess I should start calling you Freud then since you seem to be able to psycho-analyze my posts and come up with my intent so clearly. And my rant was directed not aviators, but at HQ that oftentimes hamstrings those people on the ground who have the clearest view of a situation. As in "they are flying so high they can't see what's happening" not "people who physically fly at 40K."

Yah and here's some things you assume about me: not a damn thing. Period. The end.

That's ok, I don't extend courtesy to old bitter men whose glory days have long since waned. But thank you for the warm welcome.

Sometimes this is just too damn easy ... see ya in a couple of weeks, Boot.

It will give you an opportunity to go to humble school and take a class or two in respect for those who have come before you ... and ... for "old bitter men whose glory days have long since waned" ...

*edit* ... with a few glorious exceptions on this forum that I've come to know (and love??) ... I've flown in /out of JFK & NYC a LOT over the past 30 +/- years ... why does it "seem" that the biggest pricks & know-it-all's are frequently from NYC ???

Is it something in the water ???

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ... ???

 

[Catmando]

Having been very fortunate to live a long and storied life on the edge, nothing shocks me anymore. Although I haven't seen or lived it all (who has?), I have had far more than my fair share. By now pretty much unshockable, I am still occasionally surprised…. By the periodic arrogance and ignorance sometimes expressed on this site by an FNG, presumably a result of some personal bitterness and jealousy in his past.

But there is something to be learned here. Indeed within a week I have learned two new terms: "Wing-wipers" and "thin-air sniffers." My goodness!

A4s and I don't always agree…. But on this we do….. Fucking boot!
Begone!