Tony_Tarantula on 5/6/2019 at 16:27
Quote Posted by Starker
WaPo and NYT know how to protect their sources, as opposed to amateurs like The Intercept. As for their reporters "tattling on leakers", at this point I can pretty confidently just assume you don't actually know what you're talking about, either by misreading something or by misrepresenting something, as you have consistently proved time and time again.
And as for the supposed kicker, Manning was actually exposed by a hacker and a self-described friend of Wikileaks, not a mainstream journalist. How many mainstream journalists do you know who hack into the NYT? And you know why Manning chose to trust this person? Because they were on a donor list of Wikileaks. This last one alone exposes that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what happened or simply don't know any better, and neither of these possibilities is exactly flattering.
The person is a hacker/reporter.
Also that WaPo/NYT "know how to protect their sources" is irrelevant if they also lack the inclination to do so.
As for me "not knowing what I"m talking about".
Wrong. Just because you're not informed enough to be familiar with the topic I'm referencing doesn't mean I "don't know what I"m talking about". Part of why I post the way I do is because I enjoy baiting you into exactly what's happening here where you insist I don't actually know what I"m talking about then flip it to show that it's actually you who is completely uninformed.
I present to you: A journalist bragged about turning her source into the FBI voluntarily and pre-emptively: (
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1118162129352306688)
Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan later chimed in supporting this action.
This also isn't new. Multiple times we were warned by people like former NSA analysts that they were conducting mass, warrantless, domestic surveillance and those sources you had mentioned displayed a complete lack of interest in the story. Those same mainstream "journalist" outlets also repeatedly refused to cover information damaging to the official narrative that the Iraq war was a great success.
Given the pattern of previous behavior it's entirely rational for both Snowden and Manning to have gone to non-corporate news outlets. If their past behavior was any indication they would most likely have refused to even run the story.
[quoteAnd you know why Manning chose to trust this person? Because they were on a donor list of Wikileaks. This last one alone exposes that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what happened or simply don't know any better, and neither of these possibilities is exactly flattering.
The person being on the donor list doesn't somehow mean "Wikileaks failed to protect their source". Manning, who already suffered mental health issues, both initiated contact and revealed their identity themselves. No security breach occurred on Wikileak's part. Snowden on the other hand knew the gig would be up instantly because the NSA would be able to identify him trivially regardless of any security on the publication's part and left prior to that happening. He also was willing to step forward publicly and not trying to hide his identity.