-
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
It's important to keep in mind that it takes two to tango. In rare instances, reporters (or foreign intelligence services...) can piece together classified facts from other unclassified data - hence the need for good OPSEC. In almost all cases where you see obviously classified information in the media, however, it is because someone, somewhere, disregarded their oath to protect classified information. In most cases they do so because they believe they are furthering a greater good - the country's, their Service's, their bureaucracy's, etc. In the *vast* majority of cases, it is not done by what are known as "original classification authorities" making downgrading decisions - those are very involved processes. Instead, it is "senior Administration officials" advancing a specific agenda with a given reporter. Or someone in Service A trying to stick it to Service B by leaking something adverse. Or someone currying favor with Reporter C by leaking some interesting tidbit.
What bugs me most about leaks is that most people doing the leaking have no idea about the adverse consequences that can come with public disclosure. To the policy types, they look at the info and say "I don't see what the harm can be from telling a reporter this", or "I don't even see why this is classified." In some cases, they are right - there's no obvious harm. In other cases, millions (to tens of millions, to god knows how much) of $$ can get flushed down the toilet because someone talked about a collection or an operational capability. Worse is when HUMINT gets leaked, and someone gets strapped to a board and stuck in a roaring furnace because someone talked. (Yes, it happened.)
Classified information is like crack to the media - they crave it, so they can get the scoop, and go to great lengths to cultivate sources. Both the Administration and the media knowingly use each other to advance their own agenda. The whole Valerie Plame episode is a great example of how this sort of thing is practiced in Washington, and how it can spin out of control without too much difficulty, resulting in jail time and ruined careers. The takeaway should be a simple one: if you've signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement, then STFU. Remember - reporters are not your friends, and like flight surgeons and security folks, you can generally at best break even when you're talking to them....
What bugs me most about leaks is that most people doing the leaking have no idea about the adverse consequences that can come with public disclosure. To the policy types, they look at the info and say "I don't see what the harm can be from telling a reporter this", or "I don't even see why this is classified." In some cases, they are right - there's no obvious harm. In other cases, millions (to tens of millions, to god knows how much) of $$ can get flushed down the toilet because someone talked about a collection or an operational capability. Worse is when HUMINT gets leaked, and someone gets strapped to a board and stuck in a roaring furnace because someone talked. (Yes, it happened.)
Classified information is like crack to the media - they crave it, so they can get the scoop, and go to great lengths to cultivate sources. Both the Administration and the media knowingly use each other to advance their own agenda. The whole Valerie Plame episode is a great example of how this sort of thing is practiced in Washington, and how it can spin out of control without too much difficulty, resulting in jail time and ruined careers. The takeaway should be a simple one: if you've signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement, then STFU. Remember - reporters are not your friends, and like flight surgeons and security folks, you can generally at best break even when you're talking to them....
Also remember that Navy and Marine Corps have designated Public Affairs Officers (by designator, not collateral duty such as Squadron PAO). You should NOT be talking to reporters on or off the record without consulting them. A reporter with ulterior motives can easily take advantage of someone who doesn't know the rules of the road. Best leave talking to 60 Minutes to the professionals.
And even if you think you did everything right, consider this scenario: A good friend of mine was an analyst in N81 who happened to talk to a reporter about the forthcoming Helo Master Plan. Everything he said was correct, but the reporter also talked to some industry guys and the ensuing article had a quote from him naming him and his OPNAV billet integrated with the reporters opinions and industry comments that were all off base. To the reader, it appreared he had agreed with nonofficial perspective. When the "fish wrapper" Defense News article came out, the Chief of Staff was standing by his desk when he came to work directing him to see the Admiral (do not pass go, do not collect $200). The Admiral thrust the paper into front of him and asked "Who made you the spokesman for the Navy!"
If you are in a squadron, chances are you won't walk into a press gauntlet on the way to your car. If you work in DC area, press are everywhere and you can encounter them at conferences or any of numerous luncheons. If you have a staff job, you can even have them calling you asking for comments especially after a key decision meeting or a mishap or an operation, etc (anything newsworthy). There is a Navy News Desk available 24/7 to handle such calls and the press knows it. They prefer to get the jump and perhaps catch the unwitting off guard. If surprised in this situation, simply ask if they have called the Navy News Desk...you'll then hear the wind go out of their sails and all sorts of excuses why they want to talk to you about whatever they need to know about. Best to leave such encounters to the pros who are paid to deal with press.
