3 ms·
You're not nuts, but the side-effects of this would destroy the sourcing for all other news. Imagine you work at $INTEL_AGENCY, and you truly believe that a mi
by function_seven 4y ago
You're not nuts, but the side-effects of this would destroy the sourcing for all other news.
Imagine you work at $INTEL_AGENCY, and you truly believe that a missile was fired from Russia. That info came across your desk from two separate analysts or trusted sources or whatever. You leak this to a reporter. Then it turns out that your info was wrong and the reporter outs you as the source.
Will anyone ever be a source under these circumstances? Even if they're acting in good faith? No. Not worth he risk of destroying your career or even your freedom.
If I'm a reporter, I will put this name in my own "Brady" list of untrustworthy sources, but I won't make all future sources wary of me by outing them.
- harry8 4y agoAt what point is it no longer tenable to say it was an honest mistake? What did the source have to gain from leaking the story? How do you avoid being used by some other source to plant a false story in the future? How do you avoid this source picking someone else to plant their next one? Is there really no way to balance "destroy all sourcing for other news" with "not be a patsy for WMD style propaganda?"