birdlike 0 #1 August 18, 2008 This always pisses me off, because it gets glossed over without anyone really contemplating the meaning. How many times do you read information in a newspaper article that is attributed to someone who "spoke with reporters on condition of anonymity, because he is not authorized to speak with the media"? What the FUCK, man?! Oh, a police officer, or FBI guy, etc., feels it's ok to disobey the order from above that says, "Don't leak anything to the media," because he does it anonymously?! That makes it all right? Personally, when I read that, it pisses me off. It indicates that whoever it is, whatever their position, they do their job unethically. They pass along information they have been specifically told they may not--and then they hide behind their anonymity. Shouldn't we be concerned that there are people in positions of trust who are obviously LEAKS? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #2 August 18, 2008 Welcome to the real world. People have agendas and motivations that don't allways match the team game plan. This is a little white lie compared to the other things that people in [insert department or agency here] do while carrying a badge in their pockets."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #3 August 18, 2008 Ever thought that maybe, just maybe they don't exist?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #4 August 18, 2008 Quote Ever thought that maybe, just maybe they don't exist? No they exist. They are just playing different cards that they hold. They scratch the reporters back, down the road the reporter licks their balls. Some may be trying to stockpile some favors, some may be playing office politics and trying to get a superior caught with his pants down, others are just assholes. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 August 18, 2008 QuoteEver thought that maybe, just maybe they don't exist? Hell, there was that NYT reporter, Jayson Blair, who just made sh*t up...from reporting on the DC Sniper story, to Jessica Lynch...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #6 August 18, 2008 Quote This always pisses me off, because it gets glossed over without anyone really contemplating the meaning. How many times do you read information in a newspaper article that is attributed to someone who "spoke with reporters on condition of anonymity, because he is not authorized to speak with the media"? What the FUCK, man?! Oh, a police officer, or FBI guy, etc., feels it's ok to disobey the order from above that says, "Don't leak anything to the media," because he does it anonymously?! That makes it all right? Personally, when I read that, it pisses me off. It indicates that whoever it is, whatever their position, they do their job unethically. They pass along information they have been specifically told they may not--and then they hide behind their anonymity. Shouldn't we be concerned that there are people in positions of trust who are obviously LEAKS? Yeah because states exist to protect you from crazy Muslims and the nice police man and FBI agent are just trying to help the world - how unethical to leak what is usually shit that the public are concerned about that people higher up social hierarchies don't want them to know. I heard the chocolate ration just went up to three grams a week! Awesome! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #7 August 18, 2008 Quote This always pisses me off, because it gets glossed over without anyone really contemplating the meaning. How many times do you read information in a newspaper article that is attributed to someone who "spoke with reporters on condition of anonymity, because he is not authorized to speak with the media"? What the FUCK, man?! Oh, a police officer, or FBI guy, etc., feels it's ok to disobey the order from above that says, "Don't leak anything to the media," because he does it anonymously?! That makes it all right? Personally, when I read that, it pisses me off. It indicates that whoever it is, whatever their position, they do their job unethically. They pass along information they have been specifically told they may not--and then they hide behind their anonymity. Shouldn't we be concerned that there are people in positions of trust who are obviously LEAKS? Ask K. Rove or Bush or The DICK. What's Scooter have to say.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #8 August 18, 2008 QuoteIt indicates that whoever it is, whatever their position, they do their job unethically. No it doesn't. Obeying orders has nothing to do with ethics. If you witness a murder, and your superior tells you not to report it, which path will you choose? Another example would be "Deep Throat" and the Watergate... In some instances, breaking orders can be the ethical thing to do (however subjective that may be). "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
