Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  confidentiality of sources (0+ / 0-)

    means that the government cannot force the journalist to name sources. That's what a shield law does.

    It has fuckall to do with anyone (including the government) using other legal means to determine the source.

    47 is the new 51!

    by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:18:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Focus, nickrud. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo

      You asked what the harm was.  When I showed you what the harm was, you moved the goalposts and argued something else entirely.

      Exposing all of the AP's sources, which is what happened here, is a big deal.  Governments shouldn't do that even if it is legal.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:40:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no, you're the one (0+ / 0-)

        that brought up confidentiality of sources. It has a particular meaning. You can't change the definition. Being a source to a reporters story isn't a get out of jail free card, which is what you seem to want to define it as.

        47 is the new 51!

        by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:23:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, fine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dRefractor, JVolvo

          your semantics is bullshit, but if we're going to play that way the harm suffered by AP is that many of their sources know that they are now subject to special scrutiny from the government, and even if they have done nothing wrong that can and will be used against them.  Also, it we harder for every investigative reporter in the country to find unauthorized sources willing to talk to them.

          That's what I meant by confidentiality of sources. Anyone who talked about anything, legal or otherwise, is open to reprisals now.

          Authorized sources, of course, have nothing to worry about.  So the powers that be will have even more of a monopoly on the public discourse than they do now.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:23:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  AP is not subject to (0+ / 0-)

            'special scrutiny' - the investigation of the fox reporter disproves that specious argument. As well as the multitude of laws protecting journalists that have been passed over the decades.

            Oh, and 'reprisals now'? Your historical horizon seems to be pretty short. Plame ring a bell?

            47 is the new 51!

            by nickrud on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:17:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Plame was burned (0+ / 0-)

              because her husband spoke openly, not confidentially.  Now  EVERYONE who spoke to AP is similarly exposed, even if they thought they were speaking confidentially.

              Honestly, don't you see how giving government the power to do that on a whim is dangerous?

              What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

              by happymisanthropy on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site