NY Times and intelligence leaks

€uroMeinke · 06-30-2006, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I guess I'm not clear on why only one side of the equation should get attention. It strikes me as like saying that you should thank me for exposing how unsmart it is to hide your spare key under the doormat by stealing your television.

Yeah but the reporter isn't stealin a TV, he's just saying it's stupid to hide your key where everyone knows to look, which I think is far better than lettin people presume their TV is totally secure cause no one knows where the keys are.

wendybeth · 06-30-2006, 11:58 PM

The Plame case, on top of Guantanamo and soooo many others, are what is causing this 'meh' response. They have dulled our sense of right and wrong- stilled our sense of outrage. The bastards have (for now) simply worn us down. I'm just not interested in arguing semantics or trading hate-radio barbs anymore. This administration is going to do wtf they want to, and worry about the consequences later.

Alex · 07-01-2006, 12:01 AM

Except I haven't seen a reporter say "my role is exposing the weaknesses in the government's efforts to keep secrets."

Ok, rather than stealing the TV, the lack of security is shown by taking the sex video you recorded from the box in your closet, posting it on the internet, and saying "hey, you should thank me."

Name. That is exactly my point when above I mentioned the "synchronized dance of hypocrisy." Both sides just switch sides depending on whichever bit of feigned outrage suits their preconceived notions. Take the exact same situation, change the name Bush to Clinton and 98% (approximately) of the people who have stated an opinion would instead state the opposite.

This isn't too say that every similar situation requires the same response. But for the most part people are expressing knee-jerk reactions based on minimal information and never try to get any more information except from the sources they know will reinforce what they already think. I was upset by the Plame leak until I learned more of the details. I'm somewhat upset by this New York Times publication and so far the details have, in my opinion, supported that. The wiretapping one initially didn't bother me that much but as more details became known I have come to think the New York Times had a more than appropriate justification for publishing the story.

€uroMeinke · 07-01-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Except I haven't seen a reporter say "my role is exposing the weaknesses in the government's efforts to keep secrets."

Ok, rather than stealing the TV, the lack of security is shown by taking the sex video you recorded from the box in your closet, posting it on the internet, and saying "hey, you should thank me."

Perhaps, but I think it's closer to saying - hey, if you're going to be making sex videos, do something to secure them, becasue copies are already circulating in downtown Kaubul - maybe you need a more discreet set of porn stars?

06-30-2006, 11:58 PM	#2
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	The Plame case, on top of Guantanamo and soooo many others, are what is causing this 'meh' response. They have dulled our sense of right and wrong- stilled our sense of outrage. The bastards have (for now) simply worn us down. I'm just not interested in arguing semantics or trading hate-radio barbs anymore. This administration is going to do wtf they want to, and worry about the consequences later. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-01-2006, 12:01 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Except I haven't seen a reporter say "my role is exposing the weaknesses in the government's efforts to keep secrets." Ok, rather than stealing the TV, the lack of security is shown by taking the sex video you recorded from the box in your closet, posting it on the internet, and saying "hey, you should thank me." Name. That is exactly my point when above I mentioned the "synchronized dance of hypocrisy." Both sides just switch sides depending on whichever bit of feigned outrage suits their preconceived notions. Take the exact same situation, change the name Bush to Clinton and 98% (approximately) of the people who have stated an opinion would instead state the opposite. This isn't too say that every similar situation requires the same response. But for the most part people are expressing knee-jerk reactions based on minimal information and never try to get any more information except from the sources they know will reinforce what they already think. I was upset by the Plame leak until I learned more of the details. I'm somewhat upset by this New York Times publication and so far the details have, in my opinion, supported that. The wiretapping one initially didn't bother me that much but as more details became known I have come to think the New York Times had a more than appropriate justification for publishing the story.
	Submit to Quotes