U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-05-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: In a cave
946 posts, read 789,737 times
Reputation: 716

Advertisements

I have to say, I have done very little research into this. I am just reacting at face-value and I am not quite sure where I stand this second without ponder.

We hear all the time about anonymous sources and their importance to news reporting. Most people accept it as a normal but when we look at the James Holme's case and this Fox news reporter's source a cop gave her information that she went public with that damaged the case and influenced the jury/public.

How is this in anyway different from Julian Assange/Bradley Manning case 'treason'?

So just my novice glance at this, my takeaway is this.

If you divulge information about a person, company or bland political event, that kind of "leak" is acceptable and championed.

If you divulge military/govt information you are held to a different standard and prosecuted?

Until this case, you rarely hear of a journalist being taking to task for these practice whether its right or wrong.

What do you make of this? What is the right stance? I personally think, as a knee-jerk reaction the journalist should have to get the "source" by ethical, lawful means and simply using the shield of press is somewhat lame.

If a common citizen did this kind of stuff they would be arrested, however we usually make exceptions and OK these kind of tactics outside of this Fox reporter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,557,510 times
Reputation: 24548
Information leaked to a reporter in confidence should only be used by the reporter to dig deeper into the case and obtain information that is not confidential. In a similar manner far too much government information is classified to prevent the screwup from being fired for incompetance than being actual vital government secrets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:04 PM
 
Location: In a cave
946 posts, read 789,737 times
Reputation: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Information leaked to a reporter in confidence should only be used by the reporter to dig deeper into the case and obtain information that is not confidential. In a similar manner far too much government information is classified to prevent the screwup from being fired for incompetance than being actual vital government secrets.
But isn't the initial leak of confidential or protected information (for example surrounding a high-profile criminal case) potentially going to ruin the court case?

I completely agree with your last comment, they classify everything to create a firewall. Information is power, we definitely agree on that.

I just don't get how the wrath of the gods come down on Bradley Manning (presumably because the public interests safety is at stake.) and he is literally ushered off to Quantico never to be heard of for "leaking" to a reporter "Assange"

However, when someone else has skin in the game, everyone accepts the leak as par for the course and necessary evil.

Would an accredited reporter been hunted like Assange was if Manning "leaked" the information to a NBC/ABC/FOX/NYTIMES reporter?

It seems so subjective when its acceptable and when its treasonous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 05:47 PM
 
1,474 posts, read 2,976,583 times
Reputation: 2044
People who have security clearances read and sign oaths and nondisclosure documents promising they won't give out classified information under penalty of law. Some get away with it because they give it to the media and the media does not disclose the source. But the giver is guilty of a crime and some are prosecuted. As they should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 07:35 AM
 
Location: In a cave
946 posts, read 789,737 times
Reputation: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946 View Post
People who have security clearances read and sign oaths and nondisclosure documents promising they won't give out classified information under penalty of law. Some get away with it because they give it to the media and the media does not disclose the source. But the giver is guilty of a crime and some are prosecuted. As they should be.

I figured that much, but have you ever noted how papers/media routinely claim an anonymous source that gave them the inside scoop day after day without any repercussions?

Then we have the Wikileaks issue that cause a firestorm and resulted in B.Cooper being locked up indefinitely over the same thing?

Why isn't the diligence to hunt down these other officials in higher positions done? Why is this such a treasonous act but other are not?

Just doesn't make sense, the differences in pursuit are so dramatic when it comes to the leaked sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 11:58 AM
 
1,076 posts, read 1,430,621 times
Reputation: 1955
Government data is classified based on the potential harm to national security if that information were made public (i.e., unauthorized release outside of secure channels). Someone who leaks classified information is potentially jeopardizing national security. Whether classification of certain data is warranted is a separate debate altogether.

When someone leaks information related to a criminal case, they are potentially jeopardizing that case. While that is bad for the parties involved, it does not threaten national security (unless the crime involves classified gov't data).

Neither type of leak is acceptable under the law, but if you get caught the penalties for leaking classified info are much more harsh due to the more serious damage that can be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 12:21 PM
 
Location: In a cave
946 posts, read 789,737 times
Reputation: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV8n View Post
Government data is classified based on the potential harm to national security if that information were made public (i.e., unauthorized release outside of secure channels). Someone who leaks classified information is potentially jeopardizing national security. Whether classification of certain data is warranted is a separate debate altogether.

When someone leaks information related to a criminal case, they are potentially jeopardizing that case. While that is bad for the parties involved, it does not threaten national security (unless the crime involves classified gov't data).

Neither type of leak is acceptable under the law, but if you get caught the penalties for leaking classified info are much more harsh due to the more serious damage that can be done.

I get the obvious nature of public safety vs one individual and agree they are both criminal. My point is, why is leaking of data not as vital as the Assange/Cooper data essentially overlooked and commonplace in media reporting with no one ever being taken to task?

I read stories day after day about classified information coming from embassies, politicians, etc that is definitely classified and 'in-the-know' information that was for public consumption.

It is just a very odd set of double standards, I suppose I am barking at the moon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top