3 ms·
Important to all this, "The editors in chief of SPIEGEL, the New York Times and the Guardian have agreed that they would not publish especially sensitive inform
by elblanco 16y ago
Important to all this, "The editors in chief of SPIEGEL, the New York Times and the Guardian have agreed that they would not publish especially sensitive information in the classified material -- like the names of the US military's Afghan informants or information that could create additional security risks for soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. "
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tomjen3 16y agoIt is properly good that they don't publish the names, but "information that could create additional security risks for soldiers stationed in Afghanistan" is outside what a newspaper should care about - it should be focused on getting news, not help or hinder a war.
- pistoriusp 16y agoIf you're a citizen of a country at war wouldn't hindering the war be considered treason? Besides that. Why would you want to potentially harm someone when a tiny bit of effort would prevent potential harm? There's something good to be said about been good. We are not robots.
- buro9 16y ago"Besides that. Why would you want to potentially harm someone when a tiny bit of effort would prevent potential harm?" To prevent greater harm to others.
- eli 16y agoUh, I disagree. One of the tenets of journalism is to minimize harm. There is probably information in those documents that could legitimately be used to kill people.