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?"
also, look at watergate. Journalists both used that content.
If it is the bad guy instead, go for it, expose them! But it seems we already do this.
Would journalists have ignored Nixon's crimes if Deep Throat was a Russian?
These was none of this navel gazing when Sarah Palin's emails were stolen. In fact, the press crowdsourced reading them in their search for dirt on her. Why would this be any different for Hillary Clint..... Oh, party affiliation. Forgot. Carry on, then.
As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.
Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.
And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.
The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.
Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.
There surely are a lot of people determined to pin this stuff on Russia and claim interference, but the newest would suggest it was our own guy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
After watching people (mostly liberal) defend leaks for nearly a generation, and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'.......they're all a bunch of dirty hypocrites.
Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. The leaks will keep coming, and you'll see how dirty your side really is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
To date, the Clinton campaign has not once attacked the veracity of the emails.
Not. Even. Once.
They have bobbed, weaved, prevaricated, projected, and otherwise produced non-sequitur "answers" to the questions about the content. But not once have they said "well, that one there, that's false, we never said that." Instead we get tall tales of Russians hacking the DNC -with no evidence - just the Clinton campaign's say-so.
All attacks are upon the messenger(s) and not the facts. And it's amazing how these emails match up with reality.
That tells me a lot. It tells me that the emails are real, and that once Hillary assumes office, the heat is not going to be off. [grumpy cat]Good[/grumpy cat].
Karma is a bitch.
--
BMO
Any programmer with python can EASILY VERIFY THEY ARE REAL. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
Actually, I saw one on the news saying they'd seen some of their emails up there and then they waffled about non-specific "inaccuracies." They clearly said it was their email, but they weren't giving any specifics about what they believed was inaccurate.
So that tells me the DNC email was really leaked. I'd say it's a time to "trust but verify"--that is, don't blindly trust anything you read, but corroborate it yourself with other evidence.
"[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature
The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll