The Last Bass Outpost
Main Forums => The Outpost Cafe => Topic started by: the mojo hobo on June 22, 2010, 01:46:18 PM
-
Seen a lot in the news lately:
"according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly"
So now that they have demonstrated that they lack integrity, why print what they say? How can you believe what they say?
-
So that bugs you, too? Those guys are douche bags!
-
I'd love to comment but I'm bound to silence by an exclusivity contract... :mrgreen:
(I'll second George's comment... ;))
-
So - are we better off to have information, even if un-attributed....
Or to have no information at all??
-
So - are we better off to have information, even if un-attributed....
Or to have no information at all??
In an honest whistle-blower situation I can see where an anonymous source might be warranted and appropriate, but the majority of pieces I see don't fall into that category. There have been articles in the NYT over the last ten years that would have gotten someone charged with sedition or treason in 1942 (and should have gotten them charged in the recent instances, IMO). Mentioning specifics would probably end up in political territory so I'll leave it at that, but I think the basic premise of the OP (regarding people talking when they've specifically agreed not to) has merit.
-
Thank You. That's all I'm saying. Integrity seems to be in short supply these days.
-
Thank You. That's all I'm saying. Integrity seems to be in short supply these days.
Character as well :sad:
-
I cant mention specifics but I also cant stop you clicking on the link: ;D
http://wikileaks.org/ (http://wikileaks.org/)