4 ms·
> dissuade people from leaking stuff that is confidential So it just dissuades people from exposing the govt wrongdoing the govt is trying to cover up. If we’
by user3939382 5y ago
> dissuade people from leaking stuff that is confidential
So it just dissuades people from exposing the govt wrongdoing the govt is trying to cover up.
If we’re only allowed to know about the wrongdoing the government does publicly we wouldn’t need investigative journalism.
- hogFeast 5y agoIt isn't dissuading people from exposing "govt wrongdoing". Information that is confidential is not the same thing as "govt wrongdoing" or non-public. No-one is being dissuaded because the same situation would exist before as after (this is something that reporting on this topic is eliding, this point isn't being explicitly but it is implied...and it is wrong). And investigative journalism does not only relate to non-public information either. Every journalist thinks they are Carl Bernstein, and you actually look at what they write about and is just salacious, Westminster bubble nonsense that no normal human cares or knows about. So we have the situation we have today, and there is very little serious scrutiny of the govt. Ooooh, a top adviser went to Barnard Castle? Ooooh, a SPAD who has been leaking me stories was fired? Get Carl Bernstein on the case. Utter nonsense.
- user3939382 5y ago> Information that is confidential is not the same thing as "govt wrongdoing" It can be, and that’s the problem.