4 ms·
Sources that are "anonymous" for no good reason might as well be fictional. The only reason for the source to be anonymous is because they were blatantly lying,
by smitherfield 10y ago
Sources that are "anonymous" for no good reason might as well be fictional. The only reason for the source to be anonymous is because they were blatantly lying, which they were.
- woodruffw 10y agoI'm assuming you've never held classification before. Talking to the press without being expressly permitted to is a one-way ticket to a dismissal, at the very least. Anonymous sources are a cornerstone of the free press.
- smitherfield 10y agoIt's a political talking point soundbite (a PROVEN FALSE one, at that), not classified material.
- woodruffw 10y agoWe don't know whether or not it's classified, but I think it's safe to assume that it either is or is being handled by people with classifications. That puts it firmly in the domain of "off the record or without my name, please." I don't think it's been "proven" false. I don't think it's very likely, but that is a different question.
- rdtsc 10y agoI think we are mixing things up too much there. Are you implying leaking classified material to the press as an anonymous source is somehow routine or OK? Might want to have a friendly talk with the security officer about that. If not why even bring classication into it?
- woodruffw 10y agoI'm not making any normative claim about leaking. That would be irresponsible. I brought classification up because it's one of the most common reasons for sources being anonymous. Whether or not you think they should be talking to the press, they do, and the press affords them certain protections doing so.
- metaphorm 10y agoand strategic "leaks" and press plants are a cornerstone of media engineering by the state