4 ms·

> there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true This is a Reuters article. Reuters has been a r

> there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true This is a Reuters article. Reuters has been a respected news agency for a very long time. Back during World War I, the British government asked Reuters to slip covert British government propaganda into their news stream. Reuters responded with a clear refusal to do any such thing without equally covert monetary inducement.

whatshisface 7y ago
Let's say the CIA sends some agents to "leak" to Reuters. What is Reuters going to do to verify it? They could report on it or not, but they aren't going to fly to the UAE to check for spies.
parsimo2010 7y ago
I’m not questioning Reuters’ journalistic integrity. Even if they do everything right we can’t be sure if the story is true. Their reputable sources are ex-CIA, so they are out of the loop. Any active CIA persons with knowledge of operations in the Middle East are not going to be talking to journalists. Everyone involved in intelligence collection has signed NDAs and can go to jail if they reveal classified information, even after they retire. How many people are willing to risk jail for revealing an intelligence gap? What are the chances that these sources are just guessing or lying instead? The people talking to journalists after they leave the CIA are looking to profit somehow, or they are disloyal or incompetent (or some combination of the above). They may also be good patriots spreading disinformation on behalf of the CIA. None of the above scenarios are Reuters’ fault for publishing a story with multiple sources that were willing to go on the record. But that doesn’t mean we should doubt the truth of the sources. Why is this story being published? Who stands to benefit?
vvvvz 7y ago
Pathetic.

4 ms·

> there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true This is a Reuters article. Reuters has been a r

by lucas_membrane 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago
Let's say the CIA sends some agents to "leak" to Reuters. What is Reuters going to do to verify it? They could report on it or not, but they aren't going to fly to the UAE to check for spies.
parsimo2010 7y ago
I’m not questioning Reuters’ journalistic integrity. Even if they do everything right we can’t be sure if the story is true. Their reputable sources are ex-CIA, so they are out of the loop. Any active CIA persons with knowledge of operations in the Middle East are not going to be talking to journalists. Everyone involved in intelligence collection has signed NDAs and can go to jail if they reveal classified information, even after they retire. How many people are willing to risk jail for revealing an intelligence gap? What are the chances that these sources are just guessing or lying instead? The people talking to journalists after they leave the CIA are looking to profit somehow, or they are disloyal or incompetent (or some combination of the above). They may also be good patriots spreading disinformation on behalf of the CIA. None of the above scenarios are Reuters’ fault for publishing a story with multiple sources that were willing to go on the record. But that doesn’t mean we should doubt the truth of the sources. Why is this story being published? Who stands to benefit?
vvvvz 7y ago
Pathetic.