4 ms·
by questioning them publicly and holding them to account. That's not a leak. That's keeping people in check (or force them to lie in front of camera). Remove th
by postexitus 1y ago
by questioning them publicly and holding them to account. That's not a leak. That's keeping people in check (or force them to lie in front of camera). Remove that and you only rely on Edward Snowdens of the world.
- contrarian1234 1y agoMy understanding is they want off-the-record information from unnamed sources. These aren't public questions like at a press conference. Those can still occur under the current rules.
- postexitus 1y agoIf they publish off-the-record information without approval of authorities, they will no longer be accredited to attend press conferences. Of course no self-respecting reporter is going to accept this - if you do, next step is "if you publish lies about our president, you will not be accredited" - trust me, I know, this is how it starts.