Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,996 posts)
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 09:58 AM Aug 2013

*There is a difference between those who obtain leaks and those who obtain official leaks.

Tribes

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that most "national security" journalists - you know, people who cover the pentagon, state, surveillance state agencies - identify strongly with their sources and the viewpoints of those agencies. That doesn't make them bad people, necessarily, just something to keep in mind.

*Obviously there's a difference between those who obtain leaks and those who obtain official leaks. You get the point.

by Atrios at 08:00
(*brilliant statement, mho)
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/08/tribes.html
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
*There is a difference between those who obtain leaks and those who obtain official leaks. (Original Post) kpete Aug 2013 OP
K&R MotherPetrie Aug 2013 #1
I'm not sure exactly the point of that, but "official leacks" is what makes a mockery BlueStreak Aug 2013 #2
Nothing particularly modern about it. dorkulon Aug 2013 #7
The only leaks that are not good are the ones that actually endanger Americans BlueStreak Aug 2013 #8
You know what I really want to ask Mr. Obama? chervilant Aug 2013 #3
Isn't an 'official leak' better called a disclosure? hootinholler Aug 2013 #4
"Official leak"-the version of the story they want you to hear. hobbit709 Aug 2013 #5
hobbit709 kpete Aug 2013 #6
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
2. I'm not sure exactly the point of that, but "official leacks" is what makes a mockery
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:13 AM
Aug 2013

of this whole thing. Intentional leaking has become a favorite PR tool of the modern White Houses. They do this routinely -- far more often than they have real press conferences. it is a way of getting a point out without having to own the point.

And we also see plenty of cases where different agencies go rogue if they are in disagreement with the White House or Congress. Leaks give them a way to fight back without being held accountable.

If I leak, it's OK. If you leak, it is treason.

dorkulon

(5,116 posts)
7. Nothing particularly modern about it.
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:44 PM
Aug 2013

It's a time-honored tradition. It's the main source of news for political journalists. Both kinds of leaks are, in the end, good for the nation.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
8. The only leaks that are not good are the ones that actually endanger Americans
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:59 PM
Aug 2013

and that is almost never the case with these non-administration leaks. I can't remember the last time a non-administration leaker actually endangered any Americans. remember that Ellsburg's leaks were long after the fact. They exposed criminal behavior, as most of these non-administration leaks do.

The ones that endanger Americans are almost always from the inside, such as when Cheney/Rove went after Valerie Plame.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
3. You know what I really want to ask Mr. Obama?
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:18 AM
Aug 2013

What I really want to know? --

Is this the legacy you want for your children?

hootinholler

(26,449 posts)
4. Isn't an 'official leak' better called a disclosure?
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:53 AM
Aug 2013

I find the notion of an official leak an oxymoron of the highest order.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
5. "Official leak"-the version of the story they want you to hear.
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:57 AM
Aug 2013

Unofficial leak-the version of the story they DON'T want you to hear.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*There is a difference be...