5 ms·
That's more like it! Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about, and which could compromise ongoing operation
by etjossem 10y ago
That's more like it! Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about, and which could compromise ongoing operations if it were completely transparent. Sources who want to ethically be whistleblowers need to work with reputable press outlets, releasing only what is necessary to people they know will further trim the leak - until the final product does only good for the public.
Here's a quote from Snowden on just that:
"I never published a single document on my own because I believe that the model, the ideal of American government is actually quite a shrewd one,” he said. “I tried to emulate the model of checks and balance. Instead of making a unilateral decision, that ‘The world must know,’ I worked with the free press, institutions that we trust, American journalists.”
Could Chelsea Manning have chosen a better way to release the documents than WikiLeaks? Absolutely. Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes - though I would never claim she was as responsible about it as someone like Snowden.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago>Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. >Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. Which is fair, a lot of that going around lately.
- etjossem 10y ago> This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. > Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy. If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like yourself who seems to be eager to find a reason to dislike Chelsea Manning: yes, there's such a thing as an irresponsible whistleblower.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago> post-hoc fallacy. You're just misquoting me. >If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." If you rely on dictionaries written at a third grade reading level as your source of meaning, you're doing it wrong.
- etjossem 10y agoWhen it comes to prescriptive definitions for words in the English language, I trust the concurrence of Merriam-Webster and Collins a bit more than I'm willing to trust your word. You won't convince me otherwise. If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," you are welcome to take that point of view up with the publishers. Have a great day!
- hackinthebochs 10y ago>If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," Again with the mischaracterizations! You should stop that. I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple.
- etjossem 10y agoThat is a fair way of looking at it (and consistent with prevailing definitions). However, Manning strongly suspected wrongdoing, made herself aware of it, and leaked a video in which it was blindingly obvious. She doesn't fall under your exclusion at all.
- hackinthebochs 10y agoNone of that is true as far as I'm aware. Do you have a source that Manning knew of the video ahead of time?
- 10y ago