4 ms·

Wow. In an age of increasing scrutiny of journalists, particularly in regards to the leaking of classified documents, this is a really bad look. Journalists scr

Wow. In an age of increasing scrutiny of journalists, particularly in regards to the leaking of classified documents, this is a really bad look. Journalists screwing over their sources is unacceptable in every case, we don't have any trouble understanding that when it comes to interviewing terrorists, I don't know why it's a question when it comes to this.

hindsightbias 6y ago
Some stories are bigger than sources. The 'victim', Ellsberg, would seem to agree. As far as I remember, Ellsberg was a true believer for a long time and originally wanted the information (not all of the papers) out so America would double down on VN. He thought it was still winnable. He moderated at some point in the process. Sheehan wasn't going to wait for his navel gazing and made him a progressive hero.
- donarb 6y ago
  This is the problem I have about people who leak documents. They have an agenda and so only release the parts favorable to their bias rather than the whole archive. What was held back from the story that there were documents that showed that the US government was actively trying to get out of the war via back channel negotiations.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Don't over think this. Militaries never have plans to quit a war. The other side always wants the upper hand in negotiations, hence both WW1 and WW2 going to the bitter end. Source: I study WW2, and some others.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    If Humphrey had been president, I could find fault in Ellsberg's decision not to release the diplomatic volumes. Knowing that Nixon held his own back channel negotiations to prevent peace and help his election chances, showing that Johnson made limited secret peace talks wasn't very relevant. Ellsberg's view that he didn't want to give Nixon an excuse to stall peace was a good call.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    Oh, we were actively trying to not drop napalm in Vietnam? If only we could have been a little faster in not dropping napalm. Dratz!
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    So if someone leaked info about a killbot program, your protest wouldn't be that it's bad, but it's likely there's other work going on that'll hopefully make such killbots irrelevant, and why weren't those documents leaked? That doesn't sound very reassuring at all.
- some_random 6y ago
  >Some stories are bigger than sources. Absolutely. However, is it bigger than every story you're ever going to run? Because if I'm a potential source, and I see that you're rag is fine with sending sources to jail for a source, I'm not going to talk to you. Worse, if I'm a guerrilla group with an embedded journalist, I may very logically decide that they are a threat.
- specialist 6y ago
  > The 'victim', Ellsberg, would seem to agree. I don't recall the documentary I watched, but the impression I got was that Ellsberg needed or wanted Sheehan to make the call that he couldn't bring himself to make.

hindsightbias 6y ago

Some stories are bigger than sources. The 'victim', Ellsberg, would seem to agree. As far as I remember, Ellsberg was a true believer for a long time and originally wanted the information (not all of the papers) out so America would double down on VN. He thought it was still winnable. He moderated at some point in the process. Sheehan wasn't going to wait for his navel gazing and made him a progressive hero.

donarb 6y ago
This is the problem I have about people who leak documents. They have an agenda and so only release the parts favorable to their bias rather than the whole archive. What was held back from the story that there were documents that showed that the US government was actively trying to get out of the war via back channel negotiations.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Don't over think this. Militaries never have plans to quit a war. The other side always wants the upper hand in negotiations, hence both WW1 and WW2 going to the bitter end. Source: I study WW2, and some others.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  If Humphrey had been president, I could find fault in Ellsberg's decision not to release the diplomatic volumes. Knowing that Nixon held his own back channel negotiations to prevent peace and help his election chances, showing that Johnson made limited secret peace talks wasn't very relevant. Ellsberg's view that he didn't want to give Nixon an excuse to stall peace was a good call.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Oh, we were actively trying to not drop napalm in Vietnam? If only we could have been a little faster in not dropping napalm. Dratz!
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  So if someone leaked info about a killbot program, your protest wouldn't be that it's bad, but it's likely there's other work going on that'll hopefully make such killbots irrelevant, and why weren't those documents leaked? That doesn't sound very reassuring at all.
some_random 6y ago
>Some stories are bigger than sources. Absolutely. However, is it bigger than every story you're ever going to run? Because if I'm a potential source, and I see that you're rag is fine with sending sources to jail for a source, I'm not going to talk to you. Worse, if I'm a guerrilla group with an embedded journalist, I may very logically decide that they are a threat.
specialist 6y ago
> The 'victim', Ellsberg, would seem to agree. I don't recall the documentary I watched, but the impression I got was that Ellsberg needed or wanted Sheehan to make the call that he couldn't bring himself to make.