-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NY Times blabs again
- Thread starter nittany03
- Start date
Redux
Well-Known Member
Say g'nite Chet, the bitter old man just MIGHT be your daddy or even I for that matter, hard dic* has no conscience.
DCO is the new term for Direct Input Limited Duty Officer. New guy, sit down, STFU and welcome to AirWarriors!
-ea6bflyr
..............
Now that is funny
I think I've met that guy
I propose that because of his transgressions and his lack of headwork while choosing a screen name, that he shall henceforth be addressed as Knob-job!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knob+job
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knob+job
Good Lord. I really kicked over an anthill here.
If the government authorized the leak, that's one thing. But I'm sick of hearing about secret this and classified that getting leaked to the press or reported in the news, and knowing damn well that if I did that, I'd lose my commission!
Too many in the press seem to be constantly on the lookout for the next Watergate, and end up blowing things out of the water in the name of the "public's right to know." Woodward and Bernstein did a service to the Republic by bringing down a crooked President. But that doesn't mean every administration has those kinds of skeletons, even if every cub reporter wants to find the next Deep Throat. Do they think the enemy can't read the Times, too? Do they think that John Q. Public is qualified to pass judgement on the legality of special operations? We elect the government to handle these things for us. Barring abuse of power, let them do their job!
The originating agency, or whoever is responsible for declassifying things. If the Administration authorized it, that's one thing. I would assume that at the top levels, wide leeway is given to declassifying information in order to manage perceptions in the international arena. But like PropStop said, there are things which are going on which should not see the light of day, at least for another 50 years. Which leads into:
This is true in some cases, but here's another example of a leak regarding anti-terrorism programs. It is my belief that ever since Watergate, the press has felt entitled to pass judgement on all actions of government, and has shown a propensity for considering the government guilty until proven innocent, especially when it is holding secrets. What gives them the right to determine whether something should be classified?Flash said:
If the government authorized the leak, that's one thing. But I'm sick of hearing about secret this and classified that getting leaked to the press or reported in the news, and knowing damn well that if I did that, I'd lose my commission!
Too many in the press seem to be constantly on the lookout for the next Watergate, and end up blowing things out of the water in the name of the "public's right to know." Woodward and Bernstein did a service to the Republic by bringing down a crooked President. But that doesn't mean every administration has those kinds of skeletons, even if every cub reporter wants to find the next Deep Throat. Do they think the enemy can't read the Times, too? Do they think that John Q. Public is qualified to pass judgement on the legality of special operations? We elect the government to handle these things for us. Barring abuse of power, let them do their job!
I've seen this first-hand to point of reporter pressing to be in-the-know in exchange for silence and promise of first to press when subject becomes declassified. One guy bragged about how he forced govt to let him in on operations and how he would keep heat on until they did. It was all about his ego and his right to determine what govt could keep quiet. Amazing rationale with no thought given to potential damage to warfighter.
You've no doubt signed paperwork that brings loss of clearance, freedom and your wallet as well.
Concur - I saw a telling debate with press and other pundits in aftermath of Grenada that focused on whether press should be brought in before a big operation and whether their dispatches should postponed or delayed to portect lives of warfighters during critical stages leading up to combat. Several reporters said the military or govt had no right to keep them from reporting and providing the "judgement" or public debate on whether such an operation was justified. However, when asked if they would keep a confidence with an insurgent in order to go behind the lines to get a story, they said "absolutely".
The prosecution rests. :icon_rage
And out of the hundreds of US reporters who have been embedded with US forces or have been in war zones with US troops since that news conference, how many times have they reported on operations that have endangered US or allied lives? I can think of only one off the top of my head, and I use the term 'reporter' loosely in his case.
BullGator
Active Member
Geraldo Rivera?
Personally, I think that the media being embedded isn't that great of a situation for our troops, but I suppose that that is just something that goes with the times we live-in (24hr news and so forth).
Well when I get a chance to spend a few hours in a good library, I'll see if I can find the article. This came out right around the time that the Marines came ashore in Somalia and found the beach filled with reporters. This was a bit before everything was posted on the internet.