The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Just do what the "freest, most democratic" Gov't in the world does - say it's a matter of national Security and tell anyone that still has questions to go fu&%-off.
When a person writes using a anonymous source they themselves BECOME the source. I can understand folks who are tired of endless press quoting "an official close to the investigation said". The problem is that celebrity culture has turned on a dime - folks used to care about WHAT was said but now the supposed key is WHO said it. Why? Well because the politics of personal destruction only works when there is a person identified to destroy!! Reject the temptation of identity politics. Reject attacking covert sources AND anonymous postings. Attack the SUBSTANCE itself. Addres the CONTENT directly. That's takes honor and courage. Identity politics is the opposite.
It's always been a balancing act, though. One the one hand, protecting sources encourages disclosures from people who might well otherwise say nothing. However, allowing journalists to protect the identity of their sources allows for "Informed sources say so-and-so is a paedophile" and all other manner of slander/libel. It also makes it hard for the public to judge credibility. Does "a source close to the White House" mean the White House Chief of Staff, or a homeless guy standing outside the gate?
Post a Comment