NationStates Jolt Archive

Sometimes, I think that journalists are pulling stories out of their asses, and then covering themselves with "confidential sources" that they will never reveal, because someone will find out they are as full of shit as Jayson Blair and Judith Miller.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/washington/03settle.html?hp&ex=1149393600&en=f1e6f4e36274d372&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Looks like the "press" can screw someone's life up, just like they screw with government. But, it looks like judges have had just enough of this sort of damaging conduct by the press.

How about the fact that it was the government who disseminated the story to the newspapers? Especially in the wake of the targetted ruining of Valerie Plame's career by similar methods at about the same time?

Not that the papers don't have some culpability, but the story clearly did not originate with them. It was not "pulled out of their asses" as you so falsely try to pretend. It was planted with them. And the fact remains that Wen Ho Lee WAS suspected of espionage and the papers culpability was only in relation to their printing personal information supplied to them by the government.

Sometimes, I think that journalists are pulling stories out of their asses, and then covering themselves with "confidential sources" that they will never reveal, because someone will find out they are as full of shit as Jayson Blair and Judith Miller.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/washington/03settle.html?hp&ex=1149393600&en=f1e6f4e36274d372&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Looks like the "press" can screw someone's life up, just like they screw with government. But, it looks like judges have had just enough of this sort of damaging conduct by the press.
And sometimes...no wait..make that ALL the time I see you just conveniently ignore facts as you see fit and pull whatever you like out of your butt if it reinforces your narrow viewpoint.

Like ppl before me and I have no doubt, ppl after, I'm forced to ask the practically retorical question of:
"Did you even bother reading the article you linked?"

Because if you had, you would have noticed in the SECOND paragraph, after the header, was this:
In the suit, Dr. Lee said the government had violated privacy laws by telling reporters about his employment history, finances, travels and polygraph tests. The settlement followed seven months of unusual negotiations among Dr. Lee, the government and lawyers for the news organizations.

Do you notice the word, "Government" there?

That's right - the US government that you love so dearly and are constantly arguing for and trumpeting how great it is and how poorly done by it is by the press, was the one that gave the reports to the press that screwed up this man's life.

Let's finish with what Dr. Sun had to say about this:
"We wanted to send a message to the government that leaking information protected by law is not justified, even if they think it's politically expedient to do so,"

And sometimes...no wait..make that ALL the time I see you just conveniently ignore facts as you see fit and pull whatever you like out of your butt if it reinforces your narrow viewpoint.

Like ppl before me and I have no doubt, ppl after, I'm forced to ask the practically retorical question of:
"Did you even bother reading the article you linked?"

Because if you had, you would have noticed in the SECOND paragraph, after the header, was this:


Do you notice the word, "Government" there?

That's right - the US government that you love so dearly and are constantly arguing for and trumpeting how great it is and how poorly done by it is by the press, was the one that gave the reports to the press that screwed up this man's life.

Let's finish with what Dr. Sun had to say about this:

I guess you'll ignore the part about how the press had to pay up for publishing the stories.

Just because you hear a leak, doesn't mean it's true. And that means that just because you hear a leak, doesn't mean you should publish it.

You could be ruining someone's life.

I guess you'll ignore the part about how the press had to pay up for publishing the stories.

Just because you hear a leak, doesn't mean it's true. And that means that just because you hear a leak, doesn't mean you should publish it.

You could be ruining someone's life.

Ah, so in this case then, never trust the government. Fair enough.

Leaks are a valuable communication tool for the government, and an essential weapon in the inter-departmental squabbles that will always be the norm.

Ah, so in this case then, never trust the government. Fair enough.

Considering the rash of stories from the high places of the media that turned out to be crap (the Wen Ho Lee story, everything written by Jayson Blair, everything written by Judith Miller, half the stuff on Fox and USA Today, and quite a few others we're supposed to "trust" because "the media is our essential watchdog", it's rather surprising to me that anyone would defend people who either make up the whole story or believe "highly placed confidential sources".

You know, if a government person is telling you something, it's probably a direct attempt to manipulate the press, and far less likely to be an honest whistleblower these days. But, reporters are a stupid lot, and are easily misled.

Why they continue to print things from "confidential sources" is beyond me.

In fact, if I was in charge of the government, I would have whole sections of agencies dedicated to planting false and misleading stories from "whistleblowers".

In fact, if I was in charge of the government, I would have whole sections of agencies dedicated to planting false and misleading stories from "whistleblowers".
That's the thing - leaks are a double-edged weapon. It can work great for you, but it can bite you on the arse. And there's no point complaining when that happens.

That's the thing - leaks are a double-edged weapon. It can work great for you, but it can bite you on the arse. And there's no point complaining when that happens.
News organizations today seem remarkably ignorant of the fact that leaks can bite you on the ass. Ever since the Watergate scandal, every reporter has been hoping that they'll break "the big one" with a leaker.

It's turned out wrong far more times than it has turned out right.

It's turned out wrong far more times than it has turned out right.
So long as some bureaucrat finds it suits his career ambitions, leaks will happen.

In fact, if I was in charge of the government, I would have whole sections of agencies dedicated to planting false and misleading stories from "whistleblowers".

Wait, I thought you were for small government...

News organizations today seem remarkably ignorant of the fact that leaks can bite you on the ass. Ever since the Watergate scandal, every reporter has been hoping that they'll break "the big one" with a leaker.

It's turned out wrong far more times than it has turned out right.

Do you have statistics to back that up?

Do you have statistics to back that up?
My impression is that it's the other way around, since leaking happens on an almost daily basis.
But, as I said, that's just my impression.