|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Nov 6, 2019 21:09:52 GMT
I think the question is more properly framed: Should they be? Right, and the answer off the top of my head is yes, they should. There are many instances of outlets not reporting names for those people's protection, regardless of if there is a law against it or not. But GodAwfulBaseballTeamsFan seems to suggest the media is doing it with no other motive or intention than "because fuck Trump." Well, it’s that it seems to be a group decision, and not a series of individual decisions. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 21:49:25 GMT
It’s not like he’s a foreign national who served as a long-term, highly placed US intelligence asset who could face serious reprisal from a foreign government that has been implicated in past assassinations of people under similar circumstances in the past.
If that were the case, I’m sure the media would protect his anonymity.
|
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 6, 2019 23:07:29 GMT
Right, and the answer off the top of my head is yes, they should. There are many instances of outlets not reporting names for those people's protection, regardless of if there is a law against it or not. But GodAwfulBaseballTeamsFan seems to suggest the media is doing it with no other motive or intention than "because fuck Trump." Well, it’s that it seems to be a group decision, and not a series of individual decisions. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Does it? Just because all or most are following it? There many standard journalistic practices that most of the big boys follow, including not naming people in stories for pretty valid reasons. There's nothing to suggest all the editors got on the same text thread when this broke and decided to keep the whistleblower's identity secret. It's just the story you want to be true. For what reason, I have no idea. The identity of the whistleblower will bear no weight on the veracity of the report. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Nov 7, 2019 0:19:51 GMT
When "anonymous" published their NYT op-ed, there was loads of speculation about who wrote it, and at least some effort to determine who it was.
As Buck alluded to, the Times named the CIA's Kremlin asset, who was extracted, and is no living in the U.S.
The media has no obligation to protect this person's anonymity, and if they did name him, they could provide the context necessary to better inform their readers/viewers about his motivations and biases.
It seems unlikely that every single mainstream news organization would independently come to the same decision to not name him, which leads me to think they're either all intimidated by legal threats from the whistleblower's lawyer, or they've made a group decision.
Now, since there is no legal obligation to provide anonymity, and the brave firefighters in the media have First Amendment lawyers on retainer, I highly doubt they've all been cowered into silence.
So, what's the deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by xanadu on Nov 7, 2019 0:24:39 GMT
Hey Boris, about that 400 million you want ...
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Nov 7, 2019 0:58:01 GMT
There's definitely an all out effort to intimidate anyone who might name the whistleblower.
Funny how these kinds of things aren't always consistently applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 7, 2019 1:10:00 GMT
When "anonymous" published their NYT op-ed, there was loads of speculation about who wrote it, and at least some effort to determine who it was. As Buck alluded to, the Times named the CIA's Kremlin asset, who was extracted, and is no living in the U.S. The media has no obligation to protect this person's anonymity, and if they did name him, they could provide the context necessary to better inform their readers/viewers about his motivations and biases. It seems unlikely that every single mainstream news organization would independently come to the same decision to not name him, which leads me to think they're either all intimidated by legal threats from the whistleblower's lawyer, or they've made a group decision. Now, since there is no legal obligation to provide anonymity, and the brave firefighters in the media have First Amendment lawyers on retainer, I highly doubt they've all been cowered into silence. So, what's the deal? None of this addresses anything. Your media conspiracies are always so silly. Where do you suppose these group decisions are made? Baskin Robbins? “The media” loves ice cream. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Nov 7, 2019 1:25:15 GMT
None of this addresses anything. Your media conspiracies are always so silly. Where do you suppose these group decisions are made? Baskin Robbins? “The media” loves ice cream. This would be a reasonable response if it weren't for the entirety of human history. We only have to look back to JournoList to see how political journalist coordinated stories and messages. Airlines have conspired to set prices. Developers and real estate companies have conspired to keep out minorities. Big tech companies coordinated to keep salaries in line, and to avoid poaching from each other. Gas stations keep their prices in line with each other. MLB owners colluded to keep down salaries of free agents. And, it's more than possible to signal your intentions to your "rivals" without sitting down to spell out your intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 7, 2019 1:40:40 GMT
None of this addresses anything. Your media conspiracies are always so silly. Where do you suppose these group decisions are made? Baskin Robbins? “The media” loves ice cream. This would be a reasonable response if it weren't for the entirety of human history. We only have to look back to JournoList to see how political journalist coordinated stories and messages. Airlines have conspired to set prices. Developers and real estate companies have conspired to keep out minorities. Big tech companies coordinated to keep salaries in line, and to avoid poaching from each other. Gas stations keep their prices in line with each other. MLB owners colluded to keep down salaries of free agents. And, it's more than possible to signal your intentions to your "rivals" without sitting down to spell out your intentions. Man, Media Derangement Syndrome really has a hold of you when you think a fairly standard media practice is collusion against a sitting president. All the papers that don’t use the Oxford comma? They are all flat earthers. The signs are all there. |
|
|
|
Post by Elderly man, very poor memory on Nov 7, 2019 1:45:49 GMT
The biggest fraud of all of this is how the media is so dutifully throwing around the word "whistleblower" when "biased political operative" is so much more accurate. And now that everybody -- especially the media -- know who the guy is, the media continuing to follow the Schiff-Pelosi playbook makes it even more embarrassing to me that I was once a member of the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 7, 2019 2:25:57 GMT
The biggest fraud of all of this is how the media is so dutifully throwing around the word "whistleblower" when "biased political operative" is so much more accurate. And now that everybody -- especially the media -- know who the guy is, the media continuing to follow the Schiff-Pelosi playbook makes it even more embarrassing to me that I was once a member of the media. The talking points got out late tonight, but I’m glad you still got to use them. |
|
|
|
Post by Elderly man, very poor memory on Nov 7, 2019 2:28:11 GMT
The biggest fraud of all of this is how the media is so dutifully throwing around the word "whistleblower" when "biased political operative" is so much more accurate. And now that everybody -- especially the media -- know who the guy is, the media continuing to follow the Schiff-Pelosi playbook makes it even more embarrassing to me that I was once a member of the media. The talking points got out late tonight, but I’m glad you still got to use them. Truth seems to bother you. Truth being kept out of the media seems to please you. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 7, 2019 3:19:02 GMT
The talking points got out late tonight, but I’m glad you still got to use them. Truth seems to bother you. Truth being kept out of the media seems to please you. What you regard as truth, which is really just partisan messaging designed to distract and obfuscate because your people have been conned into following a moron, does bother me. |
|
|
|
Post by Elderly man, very poor memory on Nov 7, 2019 3:37:42 GMT
What I really love is how Trump blew up Schiff's plan for weeks of obfuscation and lying innuendo by almost immediately releasing the transcript of the phone call. The Dems have been running around like head-free (and, as usual, brain-free) chickens since.
|
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 7, 2019 3:42:33 GMT
The Dems have been running around like head-free (and, as usual, brain-free) chickens since. They really have. He just keeps giving them so much evidence and witnesses (and sometimes even chiefs of staff!) keep popping up to refute what he says. Their Outlook calendars must be a mess! |
|
