From a news article today; "...said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information."
So many times you see this in the news where someone in a position of authority (an official) has knowledge of something and passes it along. This "official" isn't supposed to say anything because they aren't "authorized", yet here it is (insert unauthorized release of info) for all to read.
I don't get this. If a person is in a position of authority and has been trusted to keep it quiet, why do they still seem eager to talk about it? Are they getting paid $$$? Do they covet the "power" they have with this info? Does this make them feel "special"?
Every day you can find this happening somewhere. Just bugs me.
Ok, off the soapbox now. Feel free to continue this, or not. :D
Many times, I believe it's because the individual doesn't necessarily agree with the implications of said knowledge, but is not willing to lose his/her position taking a stand against it. Just a thought... at least that's how I've seen it come to pass many times.
Many times, I believe it's because the individual doesn't necessarily agree with the implications of said knowledge, but is not willing to lose his/her position taking a stand against it. Just a thought... at least that's how I've seen it come to pass many times.
I can see that.
Why say anything at all? If the person has been entrusted with that knowledge and isn't supposed to release it, then basically they're breaking employment rules at a minimum, or breaking the law if they have clearance and the info is non-public.
Or, geez, how about basic values to do what you say you're going to do and be a standup citizen - integrity and all of that?
I guess it depends on the info, but if your not supposed to talk about...
I'm not anti "whistle-blower", I'm talking about things that are protected for good reason. "Whistle-blower" things like corporate fraud, etc...may be hidden, but not necessarily protected.
I've always suspected that such things were intentional leaks and that language is the "catch all" phrase that journalists "respect."
That's true too and is a valuable part of the propaganda machine. People tend to "listen" to "leaked" info differently than official statements on the matter. And as par for the course will listen to official follow-ups on the "leaked" info more readily.
I'm not anti "whistle-blower", I'm talking about things that are protected for good reason. "Whistle-blower" things like corporate fraud, etc...may be hidden, but not necessarily protected.
If you are talking issues of national security, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about info on a criminal case, I also agree...
I guess my assessment of the matter is in which way the leaked info affects people. If someone were to leak strategies on the war in Iraq and could possibly get troops killed, I would be mad as hell at the source.
I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the media should be ethical about what they publish. Ofcourse, we know how far media ethics go....
I'm not anti "whistle-blower", I'm talking about things that are protected for good reason. "Whistle-blower" things like corporate fraud, etc...may be hidden, but not necessarily protected.
If you are talking issues of national security, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about info on a criminal case, I also agree...
I guess my assessment of the matter is in which way the leaked info affects people. If someone were to leak strategies on the war in Iraq and could possibly get troops killed, I would be mad as hell at the source.
I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the media should be ethical about what they publish. Ofcourse, we know how far media ethics go....
Sounds like we're on about the same page. :)
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
That's true too and is a valuable part of the propaganda machine. People tend to "listen" to "leaked" info differently than official statements on the matter. And as par for the course will listen to official follow-ups on the "leaked" info more readily.
I am feeling a bit gullible at the moment. Silly me, I had faith in the majority of our "officials". Should know better by now. :/
My feeling about this is that it's just a way of "testing" how the public will react to the news. Kinda like the old "Raise up a flag and see who salutes!"
If the reaction is too negative, they can always change their position BEFORE it's official because they have deniability..
My feeling about this is that it's just a way of "testing" how the public will react to the news. Kinda like the old "Raise up a flag and see who salutes!"
If the reaction is too negative, they can always change their position BEFORE it's official because they have deniability..
Kinda STINKS!
Well, here's another example today. Minor that it is in the overall scope of world events...who gains from leaking this info? What was this official's incentive to do what he's not authorized to do?
bold/underline added for emphasis.
"When agents arrived Thursday evening, Devlin wouldn't let them into his apartment, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation, who refused to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the case."
What if there isn't such an official at all? Just the media trying to get the story out and add some credibility?
Feasible I suppose, but do you think the media would really "quote" a source that doesn't exist? If found out later it would knock a big hole in the reliability factor of the AP writer.
As for getting the story out, there's no shortage on this one.
I don't get this. If a person is in a position of authority and has been trusted to keep it quiet, why do they still seem eager to talk about it? Are they getting paid $$$? Do they covet the "power" they have with this info? Does this make them feel "special"?
Every day you can find this happening somewhere. Just bugs me.
Don't let it bug you...
Most often, it's someone who knows the information being leaked, and they are leaking it because of some moral or ethical reason. News media won't generally print 'leaked' information unless the person who collected it knows and can guarantee the source is valid. The source isn't getting paid and there is no power to be gained simply because they are an 'anonymous' source.
I hope that the unidentifiable source has more trust in the reporter than they do in themselves.
They know that they are breaking their own "code of ethics" by leaking, and hoping that the reporter won't break THEIR "code of ethics" by revealing who they are.
Most often, it's someone who knows the information being leaked, and they are leaking it because of some moral or ethical reason. News media won't generally print 'leaked' information unless the person who collected it knows and can guarantee the source is valid. The source isn't getting paid and there is no power to be gained simply because they are an 'anonymous' source.
LOL! That's pretty naive. The media does it all the time and leakers (if one actually exists) motives are typically political. The biggest issue is that there are NO consequences as far as I can tell. I think it's irresponsible for media to print things they cannot identify the source of. Period.
