Slashdot Mirror
Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? (backchannel.com)
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
This is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election...
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
Sure... except when a foreign power uses dirty tricks to try to control the outcome of an election. Then the issue is less who said what to whom in some email and whether a country can afford to have its enemies pick its leaders.
Umm, yes it does. They took deliberation action to elicit a violent response. Do you have a problem with basic definitions?
I do not and no, it does not, but lets not get into a fruitless semantic discussion.
What I'm pointing out is that there is a difference between:
a. Driving around a bad black neighborhood in a car with KKK-markings and slogans printed on it.
b. Driving around a bad black neighborhood with a megaphone shouting "Kill whitey!"
Both could very well lead to violence, but only one of them is actively inciting violence. One could even argue that there is nothing wrong with situation a, even if it was intended to induce media coverage on violence in bad black neighborhoods. It would certainly be completely legal.
Furthermore, again: the people committing the violence in any situation are still assholes, regardless of the actions of the 'inciter'.
From what I saw and heard in the O'Keefe video, everything points to equivalents of situation a and nothing even close to situation b.
A sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes.
And yet
By your 'and' it is clear that you agree that a sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes.
lets not get into a fruitless semantic discussion
I'm not giving you a free pass to use words in contradiction with their actual meaning.
Driving around a bad black neighborhood in a car with KKK-markings and slogans printed on it.
And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?
only one of them is actively inciting violence
And this is where I insist you use correct terminology. What you are trying to say is only one of them is directly advocating others to commit violence, but you're using much looser language that actually describes what happened and then saying it didn't happen. Words have meaning, use them correctly.
you agree that a sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes
What is "sizable"? My point, since you're trying to score political points against Trump, is that the anti-Trump violence is worse and gets much less coverage. You haven't disputed that.